Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46239 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0388] 

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 August 13, 

2009, to August 26, 2009. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

August 25, 2009 (74 FR 42926). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, 

this means that operation of the facility 

in accordance with the proposed 

amendment would not (1) involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated; or 

(3) involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking and 

Directives Branch (RDB), TWB–05– 

B01M, Division of Administrative 

Services, Office of Administration, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and 

should cite the publication date and 

page number of this Federal Register 

notice. Written comments may also be 

faxed to the RDB at 301–492–3446. 

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, Public File Area 

O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46240 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

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 

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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46241 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et 

al., Docket No. 50–423, Millstone Power 

Station, Unit No. 3, New London 

County, Connecticut 

Date of amendment request: July 13, 

2007, as supplemented July 13, 

September 12, November 19, December 

13, and December 17, 2007; January 10 

(4 letters), January 11 (4 letters), January 

14, January 18 (5 letters), January 31, 

February 25 (2 letters), March 5, and 

September 30, 2008; March 5 and March 

23, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed license amendment 

request would revise the Millstone 

Power Station, Unit No. 3 (MPS3) spent 

fuel pool (SFP) storage requirements. 

The July 13, 2007 license amendment 

request proposed a stretch power uprate 

(SPU) of MPS3. Included in a 

supplement dated July 13, 2007, was a 

request to amend the MPS3 SFP storage 

requirements. The July 13, 2007 request 

was noticed in the Federal Register on 

January 15, 2008 (73 FR 2549). By letter 

dated March 5, 2008, Dominion Nuclear 

Connecticut, Inc. (DNC) separated the 

MPS3 SFP storage requirements request 

from the MPS3 SPU request. 

The request to revise the MPS3 SFP 

storage requirements is being re-noticed 

using the original significant hazards 

consideration, specific to the request to 

revise the SFP storage requirements, as 

provided by DNC in the July 13, 2007 

license amendment request. 

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: 

6.1.11.1 [Do the proposed changes] 

[i]nvolve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated[?] 

[Response: No] 

As discussed in LR [license report] Section 

2.8.6.2 [Spent Fuel Storage] and 

Westinghouse report WCAP–16721–NP 

‘‘Spent Fuel Criticality Safety Analysis,’’ 

revised spent fuel pool criticality analyses 

were performed to take into account the 

potential for more reactive fuel at SPU 

conditions. There are three different regions 

defined in the MPS3 spent fuel pool. 

• Region 1—350 storage locations 

• Region 2—673 storage locations 

• Region 3—756 storage locations 

Because of the potential for requiring more 

fresh assemblies to be loaded in the core 

every cycle, some of the assemblies to be 

discharged to the spent fuel pool may not 

have sufficient burnup to meet the 

requirements of Region 2. It may be necessary 

to temporarily store the discharge assemblies 

in Region 1. To limit the time that these 

assemblies need to be stored in Region 1, 

additional curves have been added to TS 

[technical specification] Figure 3.9–3 that 

specify the burnup limits as a function of 

enrichment, burnup, and decay time. These 

decay time curves provide assurance that all 

spent fuel pool criticality limits will be met. 

The spent fuel pool criticality analysis also 

shows that more limiting burnup 

requirements are necessary for Region 3 for 

the assemblies used at the uprate power 

level. Thus, a new curve is being added to 

address these requirements for Region 3. 

With these changes, the spent fuel pool 

criticality analysis documented in LR Section 

2.8.6.2 and WCAP–16721–NP, shows that the 

changes do not increase the consequences of 

any accident. 

The new TS limitations provide assurance 

that the spent fuel pool will remain 

subcritical for all future cycles at the SPU 

condition and there is no increase in the 

probability of a criticality accident. Thus, the 

changes do not significantly increase the 

probability of any analyzed accident. 

6.1.11.2 [Do the proposed changes] 

[c]reate the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated[?] 

[Response: No] 

The changes will be implemented with 

existing spent pool racks. Thus, no new 

failure modes are introduced. The proposed 

additional requirements and the SPU fuel 

criticality analysis provide assurance that the 

spent fuel pool will remain subcritical for all 

uprate cycles. Thus, the changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

accident. 

6.1.11.3 [Do the proposed changes] 

[i]nvolve a significant reduction in a margin 

of safety[?] 

[Response: No] 

The analysis documented in LR Section 

2.8.6.2 and WCAP–16721–NP shows that all 

spent fuel criticality limits are met and that 

there is no significant reduction in the 

margin of safety for the spent fuel pool. 

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: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. 

Chernoff. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50– 

455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Ogle County, Illinois 

Date of amendment request: June 30, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise Technical Specification (TS) 

3.7.9, ‘‘Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),’’ to 

add additional essential service water 

(SX) cooling tower fan requirements as 

a function of SX pump discharge 

temperature to reflect the results of a 

revised analysis for the UHS. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not result in 

any physical changes to safety related 

structures, systems, or components. The UHS 

itself is not an accident initiator; rather, the 

UHS performs functions to mitigate accidents 

by serving as the heat sink for safety related 

equipment. Consequently, the proposed 

change does not increase the probability of 

occurrence for any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The UHS plays a vital role in mitigating the 

consequences of any accident or transient. 

The proposed changes will ensure that the 

minimum conditions necessary for the UHS 

to perform its design functions will always be 

met. Engineering calculations demonstrate 

that the SX pump discharge design 

temperature limit of 100 °F, which was 

assumed as an initial input for the accident 

analyses, is preserved. Consequently, the 

proposed changes to cooling tower fan 

requirements, relative to the SX pump 

discharge temperature, do not increase the 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The supporting analyses for the proposed 

change do not involve a new or different kind 

of accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. The proposed limits on maximum 

SX pump discharge temperature, and the 

proposed fan requirements, are within the 

design capabilities of the UHS and ensure 

that the UHS will always be in a condition 

to perform its design function in the event of 

an accident or transient. New and revised 

analyses that support the requested TS 

changes ensure the full qualification of the 

UHS. No changes are being made to the 

physical design of the UHS such that the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident would be created. Consequently, 

these changes do not create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from 

those previously evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46242 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

Response: No. 

The proposed limits on SX pump discharge 

maximum temperature are based on the 

results of new and revised design analyses 

that ensure that the margin of safety is not 

reduced. The new limits on temperature will 

ensure that, under the most limiting accident 

or transient scenario, cooling water will meet 

the accident analyses SX design temperature 

limit of 100 °F. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(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 Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. 

Campbell. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle 

County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle 

County, Illinois 

Date of amendment request: March 

26, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the technical specification (TS) 

3.5.1, ‘‘Emergency Core Cooling System 

(ECCS) Operating,’’ to delete the 

existing allowance associated with the 

automatic depressurization system 

(ADS) accumulator backup compressed 

gas system that currently allows a 

completion time of 72 hours to restore 

bottle pressure to ≥ 500 psig. 

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 TS change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated. The ADS 

accumulator backup compressed gas system 

is designed to maintain the availability of a 

mitigation system. It is not recognized as the 

initiator of any accident. The failure of the 

ADS accumulator backup compressed gas 

system will not propagate into the onset of 

an analyzed event. As such, this proposed 

change does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

This proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. Deleting the 

existing allowance associated with the 

inoperability of the ADS accumulator backup 

compressed gas system provides assurance 

that the design function of the ADS SRVs 

[safety relief valves] assumed in the safety 

analyses will be achieved under all 

postulated conditions. The change that 

deletes the existing allowable completion 

time for an inoperable ADS accumulator 

backup compressed gas system is in the 

conservative direction and will revise the 

existing non-conservative TS to be consistent 

with existing licensing requirements for 

multiple inoperable ADS valves. Therefore, 

this proposed change will not increase the 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated in the UFSAR [updated final safety 

analysis report]. 

Based on the above information, the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. The proposed TS change does not create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change does not affect the 

control parameters governing unit operation 

or the response of plant equipment to 

transient conditions. The proposed change 

does involve the addition of a reserve 

nitrogen bottle that can be valved in during 

bottle replacement, however, during the short 

duration the reserve nitrogen bottle will be 

valved in the required minimum bottle 

pressure will be maintained at 1100 psig. The 

reserve bottle pressure requirement for this 

short duration ensures that the safety 

function of the ADS SRVs continues to be 

met. 

Deleting the existing allowance associated 

with the inoperability of the ADS 

accumulator backup compressed gas system 

does not introduce any new or different 

modes of plant operation, nor does it affect 

the operational characteristics of any safetyrelated equipment or systems; as such, no 

new failure modes are being introduced. The 

proposed action provides assurance that the 

design function of the ADS SRVs assumed in 

the safety analyses will be achieved; and, 

therefore the LCO [limiting condition for 

operation] will be met. The change that 

deletes the existing allowable completion 

time for an inoperable ADS accumulator 

backup compressed gas system is in the 

conservative direction and will revise the 

existing non-conservative TS to be consistent 

with existing licensing requirements for 

multiple inoperable ADS valves. 

Based on the above information, the 

proposed change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. The proposed TS change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The margin of safety is determined by the 

design and qualification of the plant 

equipment, the operation of the plant within 

analyzed limits, and the point at which 

protective or mitigative actions are initiated. 

The modified TS and TRM [Technical 

Requirements Manual] will ensure sufficient 

nitrogen supply exists to support both the 

LLS [low-low setpoint] and ADS function of 

the SRVs plus assumed design leakage with 

no operator action. 

The change that deletes the existing 

allowable completion time for an inoperable 

ADS accumulator backup compressed gas 

system is in the conservative direction and 

will revise the existing non-conservative TS 

to be consistent with existing licensing 

requirements for multiple inoperable ADS 

valves. 

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 

requested amendments involve 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. 

Florida Power Corporation, et al., 

Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 3 

Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus 

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: 

November 6, 2008, as revised by letter 

dated August 4, 2009. 

Description of amendments request: 

The proposed change would revise the 

Crystal River Unit 3 Improved Technical 

Specifications Surveillance 

Requirements (SRs); SR 3.8.1.2, SR 

3.8.1.6, and SR 3.8.1.10 to restrict the 

voltage and frequency limits for all 

emergency diesel generator (EDG) starts. 

The steady state voltage limits would be 

revised to be more restrictive (plus or 

minus 2 percent of the nominal voltage) 

to accurately reflect the appropriate 

calculation and the way the plant is 

operated and tested. The steady state 

frequency limits will be revised to be 

more restrictive (plus or minus 1 

percent for all EDG starts) to ensure 

compliance with the plant design bases 

and the way the plant is operated. 

Additionally, SR 3.8.1.6 will be revised 

to clarify that the 10-second start 

verifies the capability of the EDG to pick 

up load, and is not the steady state 

condition. These changes will ensure 

that the EDGs are capable of supplying 

power, with the correct voltage and 

frequency, to the required electrical 

loads. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46243 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does not involve a significant increase 

in the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

The LAR [license amendment request] 

proposes to provide more restrictive voltage 

and frequency limits for the Emergency 

Diesel Generators (EDGs) steady state 

operation. The voltage band is going from a 

range of greater than or equal to 3933 V 

[volts] but less than or equal to 4400 V, to 

greater than or equal to 4077 V but less than 

or equal to 4243 V. The proposed limits are 

plus or minus 2% [percent] around the 

nominal safety-related bus voltage of 4160 V. 

The Frequency Limits are going from a 2% 

tolerance band to a 1% tolerance band 

around the nominal frequency of 60 Hz 

[hertz] (59.4 Hz to 60.6 Hz) for all starts of 

the EDGs, at steady state conditions. For fast 

starts, the voltage and frequency limits at less 

than or equal to ten seconds will be 

consistent with the EDG ready matrix 

setpoints (90.8% voltage and 98% frequency) 

to allow for the overshoot and undershoot 

condition that exists while the voltage and 

frequency values converge on steady state 

conditions. 

The EDGs are a safety-related system that 

functions to mitigate the impact of an 

accident with a concurrent loss of offsite 

power. A loss of offsite power is typically a 

significant contributor to postulated plant 

risk and, as such, onsite AC generators have 

to be maintained available and reliable in the 

event of a loss of offsite power event. The 

EDGs are not initiators for any analyzed 

accident, therefore; the probability for an 

accident that was previously evaluated is not 

increased by this change. The revised, 

voltage and frequency limits will ensure the 

EDGs will remain capable of performing their 

design function. 

The consequences of an accident refer to 

the impact on both plant personnel and the 

public from any radiological release 

associated with the accident. The EDG 

supports equipment that is supposed to 

preclude any radiological release. More 

restrictive voltage and frequency limits for 

the output of the EDG restores design margin, 

and provides assurance that the equipment 

supplied by the EDG will operate correctly 

and within the assumed timeframe to 

perform their mitigating functions. 

Until the proposed Crystal River Unit 3 

(CR–3) Improved Technical Specifications 

(ITS) EDG voltage and frequency limits are 

approved by the NRC, administratively 

controlled limits have been established in 

accordance with NRC Administrative Letter 

98–10 to ensure all EDG mitigation functions 

will be performed, per design, in the event 

of a loss of offsite power. These 

administrative limits have been determined 

as acceptable and have been incorporated 

into the surveillance test procedures under 

the provisions of’10 CFR 50.59. Periodic 

testing has been performed with acceptable 

results. Since EDGs are mitigating 

components and are not initiators for any 

analyzed accident, no increased probability 

of an accident can occur. Since 

administrative limits will ensure the EDGs 

will perform as designed, consequences will 

not be significantly affected. 

2. Does not create the possibility of a new 

or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

Administrative voltage limits were 

established using verified design calculations 

and the guidance of NRC Administrative 

Letter 98–10. These administrative limits will 

ensure the EDGs will perform as designed. 

No new configuration is established by this 

change. The administrative limits for the 

EDG frequency were determined to be 

sufficient to account for measurement and 

other uncertainties. 

The proposed amendment will place the 

administrative limits into the CR–3 ITS. The 

more restrictive voltage and frequency limits 

will provide additional assurance that the 

EDG can provide the necessary power to 

supply the required safety-related loads 

during an analyzed accident. The proposed 

ITS voltage and frequency limits restore the 

EDG capability to those analyzed by 

Engineering calculation. No new 

configuration is established. Therefore, no 

new or different kind of accident from any 

previously evaluated can be created. 

3. Does not involve a significant reduction 

in a margin of safety. 

The LAR proposes to provide more 

restrictive steady state voltage and frequency 

limits for the EDGs. The change in the 

acceptance criteria for specific surveillance 

testing provides assurance that the EDGs will 

be capable of performing their design 

function. Previous test history has shown 

that the new limits are well within the 

capability of the EDGs and are repeatable. 

The ‘‘as-left’’ settings for voltage and 

frequency will be adjusted such that they 

remain within a tight band and this ensures 

that the ‘‘as-found’’ settings will be in an 

acceptable tolerance band. 

The proposed ITS limits on voltage and 

frequency will ensure that the EDG will be 

able to perform all design functions assumed 

in the accident analyses. Administrative 

limits are in place to ensure these parameters 

remain within analyzed limits. As such, 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 T. 

Conley, Associate General Counsel II— 

Legal Department, Progress Energy 

Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 

1551, Raleigh, NC 27602. 

NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, 

Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: June 24, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

modify Technical Specification (TS) 

requirements related to control room 

envelope (CRE) habitability in 

accordance with Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) traveler 

TSTF–448 Revision 3, ‘‘Control Room 

Habitability,’’ per the consolidated line 

item improvement process (CLIIP). 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) staff issued a notice 

of opportunity for comment in the 

Federal Register on October 17, 2006 

(71 FR 61075), on possible amendments 

concerning this CLIIP, including a 

model safety evaluation and a model no 

significant hazards consideration 

(NSHC) determination. The NRC staff 

subsequently issued a notice of 

availability of the models for referencing 

in license amendment applications in 

the Federal Register on January 17, 

2007 (72 FR 2022), as part of the CLIIP. 

In its application dated June 24, 2009, 

the licensee affirmed the applicability of 

the following determination. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration is presented 

below: 

Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change does not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors nor 

alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 

configuration of the facility. The proposed 

change does not alter or prevent the ability 

of structures, systems, and components 

(SSCs) to perform their intended function to 

mitigate the consequences of an initiating 

event within the assumed acceptance limits. 

The proposed change revises the TS for the 

CRE emergency ventilation system, which is 

a mitigation system designed to minimize 

unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to 

filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE 

occupants in the event of accidents 

previously analyzed. An important part of 

the CRE emergency ventilation system is the 

CRE boundary. The CRE emergency 

ventilation system is not an initiator or 

precursor to any accident previously 

evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated is not 

increased. Performing tests to verify the 

operability of the CRE boundary and 

implementing a program to assess and 

maintain CRE habitability ensure that the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46244 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

CRE emergency ventilation system is capable 

of adequately mitigating radiological 

consequences to CRE occupants during 

accident conditions, and that the CRE 

emergency ventilation system will perform as 

assumed in the consequence analyses of 

design basis accidents. Thus, the 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the 

proposed 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 does not impact the 

accident analysis. The proposed change does 

not alter the required mitigation capability of 

the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its 

functioning during accident conditions as 

assumed in the licensing basis analyses of 

design basis accident radiological 

consequences to CRE occupants. No new or 

different accidents result from performing the 

new surveillance or following the new 

program. The proposed change does not 

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

no new or different type of equipment will 

be installed) or a significant change in the 

methods governing normal plant operation. 

The proposed change does not alter any 

safety analysis assumptions and is consistent 

with current plant operating practice. 

Therefore, this change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from an accident previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin 

of Safety 

The proposed change does not alter the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined. The proposed 

change does not affect safety analysis 

acceptance criteria. The proposed change 

will not result in plant operation in a 

configuration outside the design basis for an 

unacceptable period of time without 

compensatory measures. The proposed 

change does not adversely affect systems that 

respond to safely shut down the plant and to 

maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 

condition. Therefore, the proposed change 

does not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

analysis adopted by the licensee and 

based on its review, it appears that the 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, 

Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy 

Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, 

Minneapolis, MN 55401. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James. 

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. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50– 

455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Ogle County, Illinois 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Will County, Illinois. 

Date of amendment request: June 24, 

2009. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendment 

would permanently revise Technical 

Specification (TS) 5.5.9, ‘‘Steam 

Generator (SG) Program,’’ to exclude 

portions of the tube below the top of the 

SG tubesheet from periodic SG tube 

inspections and plugging or repair. In 

addition, this amendment would revise 

the wording of reporting requirements 

in TS 5.6.9, ‘‘Steam Generator (SG) Tube 

Inspection Report.’’ The proposed 

changes only affect Byron, Unit No. 2, 

and Braidwood, Unit 2; however, this 

action is docketed for both Byron and 

Braidwood units because the TS are 

common to Units 1 and 2. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: July 31, 

2009 (74 FR 38234). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

August 30, 2009 (public comment); 

September 29, 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 O1F21, 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. 

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., 

Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, 

and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear 

Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 

3, Maricopa County, Arizona 

Date of application for amendment: 

August 29, 2008, as supplemented by 

letters dated March 5 and August 7, 

2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments modified Technical 

Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ‘‘Core 

Operating Limits Report (COLR),’’ by 

updating the list of references in TS 

5.6.5.b to reflect the current analytical 

methods used to determine the core 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46245 

operating limits for Palo Verde Nuclear 

Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3. 

Date of issuance: August 26, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: Unit 1–174; Unit 2– 

174; Unit 3–174. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

41, NPF–51, and NPF–74: The 

amendment revised the Operating 

Licenses and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR 

65688). The supplemental letters dated 

March 5 and August 7, 2009, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 26, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 

50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg 

County, North Carolina 

Date of application for amendments: 

August 21, 2008. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments implement Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Changes Travelers TSTF–479, Revision 

0, ‘‘Changes to Reflect Revision of [Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations] 

10 CFR 50.55a,’’ and TSTF–497, 

Revision 0, ‘‘Limit Inservice Testing 

[IST] Program SR [Surveillance 

Requirements] 3.0.2 Application to 

Frequencies of 2 Years or Less.’’ TSTF– 

479 and TSTF–497 revise the technical 

specification’s Administrative Controls 

section pertaining to requirements for 

the IST Program, consistent with the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for 

pumps and valves which are classified 

as American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME), Boiler and Pressure 

Vessel Code Class 1, Class 2, and Class 

3. 

Date of issuance: August 17, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 252 and 232. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments 

revised the licenses and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 3, 2009 (74 FR 18253). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 17, 

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: 

September 9, 2008, as supplemented by 

letter dated April 24, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: This 

amendment modified Technical 

Specification 3.3.6.1, ‘‘Primary 

Containment Isolation 

Instrumentation,’’ to lower the Group 1 

isolation valves reactor water level 

isolation signal from Level 2 to Level 1. 

Date of issuance: August 18, 2009. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to entry into Mode 2 during 

startup from refueling outage 20. 

Amendment No.: 214. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

21: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 2, 2008 (73 FR 

73353). The supplemental letter dated 

April 24, 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 August 18, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–247, Indian Point 

Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, 

Westchester County, New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 5, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated April 17 and June 22, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment updates the reactor vessel 

heatup and cooldown limit curves and 

the low-temperature over-pressure 

protection curves. 

Date of issuance: August 17, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 262. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

26: The amendment revised the License 

and the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 19, 2009 (74 FR 23443). 

The April 17 and June 22, 2009, 

supplements provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 17, 

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: April 16, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment changes the name of 

the Licensee and Co-owner from ‘‘FPL 

Energy Seabrook, LLC’’ to ‘‘NextEra 

Energy Seabrook, LLC.’’ 

Date of issuance: August 21, 2009. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 122. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

86: The amendment revised the License, 

Appendix B—Environmental Protection 

Plan, and Appendix C—Additional 

Conditions. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 2, 2009 (74 FR 26434). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 21, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (NMP2), 

Oswego County, New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 9, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the Technical 

Specification (TS) testing frequency for 

the Surveillance Requirement (SR) in TS 

3.1.4, ‘‘Control Rod Scram Times,’’ by 

extending the frequency of SR 3.1.4.2, 

from ‘‘120 days cumulative operation in 

Mode 1’’ to ‘‘200 days cumulative 

operation in Mode 1.’’ This change is 

based on Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission-approved TS Task Force 

(TSTF) Change Traveler, TSTF–460–A, 

Revision 0, ‘‘Control Rod Scram Time 

Testing Frequency.’’ These changes 

were described in a Notice of 

Availability for Consolidated Line Item 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46246 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

Improvement Process published in the 

Federal Register on August 23, 2004 (69 

FR 51864). 

Date of issuance: August 19, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment No.: 132. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–069: The amendment revises 

the License and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 19, 2009 (74 FR 23447). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, LLC, Docket No. 50–263, 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, 

Wright County, Minnesota 

Date of application for amendment: 

April 15, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the MNGP 

Technical Specifications (TS), deleting 

paragraph d (regarding limitation of 

working hours of personnel who 

perform safety-related functions) of TS 

5.2.2, ‘‘Unit Staff.’’ 

Date of issuance: August 19, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented by 

October 1, 2009. 

Amendment No.: 163. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

22. Amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 16, 2009 (74 FR 28578). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, 

Minnesota 

Date of application for amendments: 

April 15, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments delete those portions of the 

Technical Specifications superseded by 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 26, Subpart I. 

Date of issuance: August 19, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented by 

October 1, 2009. 

Amendment Nos.: 193, 182. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

42 and DPR–60: Amendments revised 

the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 16, 2009 (74 FR 28578). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo 

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo 

County, California 

Date of application for amendments: 

May 5, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the DCPP 

Technical Specification (TS) 5.2.2, 

‘‘Unit Staff,’’ to eliminate working hour 

restrictions in paragraph d of TS 5.2.2 

to support compliance with Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) Part 26. The change is consistent 

with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC)-approved Revision 0 

to TS Task Force (TSTF) Improved 

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 on 

December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79923), as 

part of the consolidated line item 

improvement process. 

Date of issuance: August 19, 2009. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented by 

October 1, 2009. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–206; Unit 

2–207. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

80 and DPR–82: The amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 16, 2009 (74 FR 28579). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 

Power Plant, Wayne County, New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

December 4, 2008. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the Technical 

Specifications to allow refueling 

operations with both containment 

personnel interlock doors to be open 

under administrative control consistent 

with Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) Travelers TSTF–68 and TSTF– 

312. In support of this amendment 

request, the licensee recalculated the 

fuel gas gap fractions for its design-basis 

fuel handling accident and has justified 

a shorter decay time of 72 hours 

utilizing the alternative source term 

methodology. 

Date of issuance: August 12, 2009 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance to be implemented within 30 

days. 

Amendment No.: 107 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–18: Amendment revised the 

License and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 10, 2009 (74 FR 10311) 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 12, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 

Power Plant, Wayne County, New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 23, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment deletes paragraph d of 

Technical Specification (TS) 5.2.2, 

‘‘Plant Staff.’’ The amendment is 

consistent with Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission approved Revision 0 to the 

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 [Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations] 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. 

Date of issuance: August 12, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance to be implemented with the 

implementation of the new 10 CFR Part 

26, Subpart I requirements. 

Amendment No.: 108. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–18: Amendment revised the 

License and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 21, 2009 (74 FR 18256). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 12, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46247 

STP Nuclear Operating Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South 

Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda 

County, Texas 

Date of amendment request: March 3, 

2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications (TS) to eliminate working 

hour restrictions from TS 6.2.2 to 

support compliance with Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

Part 26. The request is consistent with 

the guidance contained in the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)- 

approved TS 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 

improvement was announced in the 

Federal Register on December 30, 2008 

(73 FR 79923), as part of the 

Consolidated Line Item Improvement 

Process. 

Date of issuance: August 18, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented by 

October 1, 2009. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–192; Unit 

2–180. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

76 and NPF–80: The amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 16, 2009 (74 FR 28579). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 18, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, 

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 

and 3, Limestone County, Alabama 

Date of application for amendments: 

March 27, 2008, as supplemented by 

letters dated December 19, 2008, 

February 9, April 24, and May 26, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments revised the technical 

specifications (TSs) to adopt the content 

of Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) change traveler TSTF448, 

Revision 3, ‘‘Control Room 

Habitability.’’ Specifically, the 

amendments revised TS 3.7.3, ‘‘Control 

Room Emergency Ventilation (CREV) 

System,’’ and added TS 5.5.13, ‘‘Control 

Room Envelope Habitability Program.’’ 

The amendments also added a new 

license condition regarding initial 

performance of the new surveillance 

and assessment requirements of the 

revised TSs. 

Date of issuance: August 18, 2009. 

Effective date: Date of issuance, to be 

implemented within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 275, 302, and 261. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and DPR–68: 

Amendments revised the Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 26, 2008 (73 FR 

50362) and revised on January 27, 2009 

(74 FR 4775). The supplements dated 

February 9, April 24, and May 26, 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 August 18, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton 

County, Tennessee 

Date of application for amendments: 

October 21, 2008. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Sequoyah Nuclear 

Plant’s Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Report (UFSAR) to require an inspection 

of each ice condenser within 24 hours 

of experiencing a seismic event greater 

than or equal to an operating basis 

earthquake (i.e., 1⁄2 of a safe shutdown 

earthquake) within the 5-week period 

after ice basket replenishment is 

completed. This will confirm that ice 

condenser lower inlet doors have not 

been blocked by ice fallout. 

The proposed amendments provided 

a procedural requirement to confirm the 

ice condenser maintains the ice 

condenser generic qualification as set 

forth in the UFSAR. Justification for the 

use of the proposed procedural 

requirement is based on reasonable 

assurance that the ice condenser lower 

inlet doors will open following a 

seismic event during the 5-week period 

and the low probability of a seismic 

event occurring coincident with or 

subsequently followed by a design basis 

accident. 

Date of issuance: August 14, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. The UFSAR 

changes shall be implemented in the 

next periodic update made in 

accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e). 

Amendment Nos.: 325 and 317. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

77 and DPR–79: Amendments changed 

the licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 13, 2009 (74 FR 

1715). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 14, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th 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. E9–21389 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 72–27; NRC–2009–0205] 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; 

Humboldt Bay Independent Spent Fuel 

Storage Installation; Notice of 

Issuance of Amendment to Materials 

License No. SNM–2514 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Issuance of 

Amendment to Materials License SNM– 

2514. 

DATES: A request for a hearing must be 

filed by November 9, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shana R. Helton, Senior Project 

Manager, Division of Spent Fuel Storage 

and Transportation, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, Mail 

Stop EBB–3D–02M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. Telephone: (301) 492– 

3284; e-mail: shana.helton@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

On November 17, 2005, the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

issued NRC Materials License No. 

SNM–2514 to the Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company (PG&E) for the 

Humboldt Bay Independent Spent Fuel 

Storage Installation (ISFSI), located in 

Humboldt County, California. The 

license authorizes PG&E to receive, 

possess, store, and transfer spent 

nuclear fuel and associated radioactive 

materials resulting from the operation of 

the Humboldt Bay Power Plant in an 

ISFSI at the power plant site for a term 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES