48318 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 22, 2009 / Notices 

Activity for Which Permit Is Requested 

Enter Antarctic Specially Protected 

Area. The applicant plans to enter Cape 

Crozier (ASPA 124) to install radio 

equipment that will provide voice and 

data services for the science team 

working in the area. Equipment will be 

located inside the fish hut as well as a 

small radio link located approximately 

100 yards away on the ridge facing Mt. 

Terror. Visits to will be to install 

equipment, repair to communications 

equipment should failure of the radio 

links occur, and to retrieve the 

equipment at the end of the season. 

Location 

Cape Crozier (ASPA 124). 

Dates 

October 1, 2009 to February 18, 2010. 

2. Applicant: Permit Application No. 

2010–013. Sam Feola, Director, 

Raytheon Polar Services Company, 7400 

South Tucson Way, Centennial, CO 

80112. 

Activity for Which Permit Is Requested 

Enter Antarctic Specially Protected 

Area. The applicant plans to enter ‘‘New 

College Valley’’, Caughley Beach, Cape 

Bird (ASPA 116) to install radio 

equipment that will provide voice and 

data services for the science team 

working in the area. Equipment will be 

located inside the fish hut as well as a 

small radio link located approximately 

75 yards away on the ridge nearest Mt. 

Bird. Visits to will be to install 

equipment, repair to communications 

equipment should failure of the radio 

links occur, and to retrieve the 

equipment at the end of the season 

Location 

Cape Crozier (ASPA 124). 

Dates 

October 1, 2009 to February 18, 2010. 

3. Applicant: Permit Application No. 

2010–014. Jessica Grindstaff, 40 

Harrison Street, 15J, New York City, NY 

10013. 

Activity for Which Permit Is Requested 

Enter Antarctic Specially Protected 

Areas. The applicant plans to enter Cape 

Royds (ASPA 121) and Backdoor Bay, 

Cape Royds (ASPA 157) to enter the 

areas to further their research involving 

Ernest Shackleton. In addition to their 

studies on Shackleton and his 

Endurance Expedition, they are 

studying the light, sound (ice, water, 

wind, and fauna) and topography for 

use in their score and designs for ‘‘69 

°S.: The Shackleton Project.’’ 

Location 

Cape Royds (ASPA 121) and Backdoor 

Bay, Cape Royds (ASPA 157). 

Dates 

January 25, 2010 to February 5, 2010. 

Nadene G. Kennedy, 

Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–22690 Filed 9–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0407] 

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 27, 

2009 to September 9, 2009. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

September 8, 2009 (74 FR 46239). 

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 O– 

1 F21, 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 22, 2009 / Notices 48319 

available at the Commission’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Public 

File Area O–1 F21, 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 

2007 (72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). 

The E–Filing process requires 

participants to submit and serve all 

adjudicatory documents over the 

Internet, or in some cases to mail copies 

on electronic storage media. Participants 

may not submit paper copies of their 

filings unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E–Filing, at least 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 electronic filing Help Desk, which 

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

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. The 

toll-free help line number is 1–866– 

672–7640. A person filing electronically 

may also seek assistance by sending an 

e-mail to the NRC electronic filing Help 

Desk at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
48320 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 22, 2009 / Notices 

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 O– 

1 F21, 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. 

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 requests: January 

30, 2009, as supplemented by letter 

dated March 16, 2009. 

Description of amendment requests: 

Southern California Edison (SCE) is 

requesting an amendment to Technical 

Specification 5.7.1.5, ‘‘Core Operating 

Limits Report (COLR),’’ to allow the use 

of the CASMO–4 computer program 

methodology to perform nuclear design 

calculations. 

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 changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

SCE is adding the CASMO–4 computer 

program to its physics analysis methodology 

and will use the program for nuclear design 

analysis. This will allow the use of the 

CASMO–4 methodology to perform all 

steady-state pressurized water reactor (PWR) 

nuclear design analyses. The probability of 

occurrence of an accident previously 

evaluated will not be increased by the 

proposed change in the particular computer 

programs used for physics calculations for 

nuclear design analysis. The results of 

nuclear design analyses are used as inputs to 

the analysis of accidents that are evaluated in 

the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR). These inputs do not alter physical 

characteristics or modes of operation of any 

system, structure, or component involved in 

the initiation of an accident. Thus, there is 

no significant increase in the probability of 

an accident previously evaluated as a result 

of this change. 

The consequences of an accident evaluated 

in the UFSAR are affected by the values of 

the physics inputs to the safety analysis. An 

extensive benchmark of CASMO–4 was 

performed with both San Onofre measured 

and predicted data, and with critical 

experiments. The accuracy of the CASMO–4 

model is similar to the accuracy of the 

CASMO–3 model. Furthermore, there is the 

potential for the value of the nuclear design 

parameters to change solely as a result of the 

new core reload full core loading pattern. 

Regardless of the source of a change, an 

assessment is made of changes to the nuclear 

design parameters with respect to their 

effects on the consequences of accidents 

previously evaluated in the UFSAR. Thus, 

the nuclear design parameters are 

intermediate results and by themselves will 

not result in an increase in the consequences 

of an accident evaluated in the UFSAR. 

Therefore, the use of the CASMO–4 

methodology, which will perform the same 

functions as the existing CASMO–3 

methodology with similar accuracy, does not 

significantly increase the 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 change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The possibility for a new or different kind 

of accident evaluated previously in the 

UFSAR will not be created by the change to 

the particular methodologies used for physics 

calculations for nuclear design analyses. The 

change involves adding CASMO–4 to the 

SCE physics analysis methodology. CASMO– 

4 is an update to the CASMO–3 methodology 

currently approved for use at San Onofre. 

The results of nuclear design analyses are 

used as inputs to the analysis of accidents 

that are evaluated in the UFSAR. These 

inputs do not alter the physical 

characteristics or modes of operation of any 

system, structure or component involved in 

the initiation of an accident. Therefore, the 

addition of CASMO–4, which will perform 

the same functions as CASMO–3 with similar 

accuracy, does not create the possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The margin of safety as defined in the basis 

for any technical specification will not be 

reduced by the proposed change to the 

computer programs used for physics 

calculations for nuclear design analyses. 

The change involves the addition of 

CASMO–4 to the SCE physics analysis 

methodology for nuclear design analysis. 

Extensive benchmarking of CASMO–4 has 

demonstrated that the values of those 

parameters used in the safety analysis are not 

significantly changed relative to the values 

obtained using the NRC approved CASMO– 

3 methodology. For any changes in the 

calculated values that do occur, the 

application of appropriate biases and 

uncertainties ensures that the current margin 

of safety is maintained. Specifically, use of 

these code specific biases and uncertainties 

in safety analyses continues to provide the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 22, 2009 / Notices 48321 

same statistical assurance that the values of 

the nuclear parameters used in the safety 

analysis are conservative with respect to the 

actual values on at least a 95/95 probability/ 

confidence basis. 

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 requests involve 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. 

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. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 

and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, 

York and Lancaster Counties, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendments: 

August 7, 2008, as supplemented on 

May 7, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

submittal contains an amendment with 

six proposed changes that modify the 

PBAPS Units 2 and 3 Operating 

Licenses DPR–44 and DPR–56, 

respectively. Four of the six changes 

incorporate Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF) travelers that have 

been previously approved by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

The remaining proposed changes 

modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 

Technical Specifications (TSs) to 

incorporate administrative changes and 

clarifications. 

A TS change is issued to incorporate 

TSTF–485–A, ‘‘Correct Example 1.4–1,’’ 

Revision 0, to modify the PBAPS Units 

2 and 3 TS Section 1.4, ‘‘Frequency.’’ 

Specifically, Example 1.4–1 is revised to 

be consistent with the requirements of 

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.4 

which was revised by TSTF–359, 

‘‘Increase Flexibility in Mode 

Restraints,’’ Revision 9. The current 

version of Example 1.4–1 is not 

consistent with the current 

requirements of SR 3.0.4. Example 1.4– 

1 is modified to reflect that it is possible 

to enter the MODE or other specified 

condition in the applicability of a 

limited condition for operation (LCO) 

with a surveillance not performed 

within the frequency requirements of SR 

3.0.2 without resulting in a violation of 

SR 3.0.4. 

A TS change is issued to modify the 

PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS to incorporate 

two administrative changes. The first 

change modifies TS Table 3.3.8.1–1, 

‘‘Loss of Power Instrumentation.’’ TS 

Table 3.3.8.1–1 lists the TS functions 

associated with the Loss of Power 

Instrumentation and include note (a) at 

the bottom of Table 3.3.8.1–1. The 

original intent of this footnote was to 

temporarily retain a record of the 

previous Loss of Power Instrumentation 

values to allow for appropriate 

transition during the period of time that 

modifications were being installed on 

Units 2 and 3. This footnote was to 

expire no later than March 1, 2000 (as 

stated in the footnote). The note has 

expired and is no longer necessary. 

Therefore, note (a) at the bottom of 

Table 3.3.8.1–1 is eliminated as an 

administrative change to the TS. 

The second change modifies TS Table 

3.3.3.1–1, ‘‘Post Accident Monitoring 

Instrumentation,’’ to correct a 

typographical error. A previous license 

amendment incorporated TSTF–295, 

Revision 0, ‘‘Post Accident Monitoring 

Clarifications,’’ which included 

changing the title for Function 8 in TS 

Table 3.3.3.1–1 from, ‘‘PCIV Position,’’ 

to ‘‘Penetration Flow Path PCIV 

Position.’’ However, Function 8 was 

inadvertently revised on the PBAPS, 

Unit 2 page to state ‘‘Penetration Flaw 

Path PCIV Position.’’ The amendment 

corrects this typographical error for 

Function 8 in Table 3.3.3.1–1 of the 

Unit 2 PBAPS TS. 

A TS change is issued to modify the 

PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS to incorporate 

an administrative change to Table 

3.3.1.1–1, ‘‘Reactor Protection System 

Instrumentation.’’ Specifically, the 

proposed change would modify TS 

Table 3.3.1.1–1 to delete the ‘‘NA’’ from 

the Allowable Value column for 

Function 2.f, ‘‘OPRM [oscillation power 

range monitor] Upscale.’’ The reference 

to footnote ‘‘(d)’’ which states: ‘‘See 

COLR [core operating limits report] for 

OPRM period based detection algorithm 

(PBDA) setpoint limits,’’ will remain in 

the Allowable Value column for 

Function 2.f in TS Table 3.3.1.1–1. 

Footnote ‘‘(d)’’ in TS Table 3.3.1.1–1 

references the PBAPS COLR which 

contains the trip setpoint for the 

setpoint limits associated with Function 

2.f. Therefore, the ‘‘NA’’ designation 

associated with note ‘‘d’’ is eliminated 

to preclude possible confusion. 

The licensee’s application also 

proposed a TS change to incorporate 

TSTF–363–A, ‘‘Revise Topical Report 

References in ITS [improved technical 

specifications] 5.6.5, COLR,’’ Revision 0, 

to modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS 

5.6.5, ‘‘Core Operating Limits Report 

(COLR),’’ to remove the requirement to 

maintain COLR Topical Report 

references by number, title, date, and 

NRC staff-approved document, if 

included. This proposed TS change to 

incorporate TSTF–363–A, Revision 0, 

remains under review by the NRC staff 

and is not being issued under this 

Notice. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
48322 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 22, 2009 / Notices 

The licensee’s application also 

proposed a TS change to incorporate 

TSTF–400–A, ‘‘Clarification of 

Surveillance Requirement on Bypass of 

Noncritical DG [diesel generator] 

Automatic Trips,’’ Revision 1, to modify 

the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS SR 3.8.1.13 

to clarify the intent of the SR. This 

proposed TS change to incorporate 

TSTF–400–A, Revision 1, remains 

under review by the NRC staff and is not 

being issued under this Notice. 

The licensee’s application also 

proposed a TS change to incorporate 

TSTF–439–A, ‘‘Elimination of Second 

Completion Times Limiting Time From 

Discovery of Failure To Meet an LCO,’’ 

Revision 2, to modify the PBAPS Units 

2 and 3 TS Section 1.3, ‘‘Completion 

Times,’’ regarding second completion 

times for TS Action statements. This 

proposed TS change to incorporate 

TSTF–439–A, Revision 2, remains 

under review by the NRC staff and is not 

being issued under this Notice. 

Date of issuance: August 31, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 273 and 277. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: Amendments 

revised the License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 5, 2009, (74 FR 20744). 

The supplement dated May 7, 2009, 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the initial 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

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

County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle 

County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendments: 

September 11, 2008, as supplemented 

by letter dated August 11, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendment removes time, cycle, or 

modification-related items from the 

operating license and Technical 

Specifications (TS). Additionally, the 

amendment corrects a typographical 

error introduced into the TS from a 

previous amendment. 

Date of issuance: August 27, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 193/180. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

11 and NPF–18: The amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications and 

License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 30, 2008 (73 FR 

79931). The supplemental letter 

contained clarifying information, did 

not change the initial no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and did not expand the scope of the 

original Federal Register notice. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 27, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket No. 50–440, 

Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, 

Lake County, Ohio 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 11, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: This 

amendment revises the technical 

specification (TS) surveillance 

requirement frequency in TS 3.1.3, 

‘‘Control Rod OPERABILITY,’’ and 

revises Example 1.4–3 in Section 1.4, 

‘‘Frequency,’’ to clarify the applicability 

of the 1.25 surveillance test interval 

extension. 

Date of issuance: September 1, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days. 

Amendment No.: 153. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

58: This amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications and License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 5, 2009 (74 FR 20748). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 1, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Florida Power and Light Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey 

Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade 

County, Florida 

Date of application for amendments: 

April 13, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise the Turkey Point 

Technical Specification (TS) to 

eliminate working hour restrictions 

from TS 6.8.5 to support compliance 

with Code of Federal Regulations Title 

10 Part 26. 

Date of issuance: August 31, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented by 

October 1, 2009. 

Amendment Nos: 240 and 235. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41: Amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 30, 2009. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, 

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Houston County, Alabama 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Georgia Power Company, 

Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 

City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– 

321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 

Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling 

County, Georgia 

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 application for amendments: 

May 19, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments delete those portions of 

technical specifications (TSs) 

superseded by Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, 

Subpart I. This change is consistent 

with the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC)-approved Revision 0 

to Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler, TSTF–511, ‘‘Eliminate 

Working Hour Restrictions from TS 

5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 

CFR Part 26.’’ 

Date of issuance: September 4, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented by 

October 1, 2009. 

Amendment Nos.: Farley Unit 1—182; 

Unit 2—175; Hatch Unit 1—262; Unit 

2—206; Vogtle Unit 1—156; Unit 2— 

137. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

2 and NPF–8; DPR–57 and NPF–5; NPF– 

68 and NPF–81: Amendments revised 

the licenses and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 30, 2009 (74 FR 31325). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 4, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 22, 2009 / Notices 48323 

1Request of the United States Postal Service to 

Add Priority Mail Contract 18 to Competitive 

Product List, September 11, 2009 (Request). 

2Attachment A to the Request, reflecting 

Governors’ Decision No. 09–6, April 27, 2009. 

3Attachment B to the Request. 

4Attachment C to the Request. 

5Attachment D to the Request. 

6Attachment E to the Request. 

7Attachment F to the Request. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

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

Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of application for amendment: 

June 5, 2009, as supplemented July 10, 

2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised WBN Unit 1 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.3, 

‘‘Containment Isolation Valves.’’ The 

amendment revised Required Action 

A.2, Required Action C.2, Required 

Action E.2, Surveillance Requirement 

(SR) 3.6.3.2, and SR 3.6.3.3 to provide 

alternatives for valve position 

verification. 

Date of issuance: September 3, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 79. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

90: Amendment revises the TS 3.6.3. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 30, 2009 (74 FR 31327). 

The supplement dated July 10, 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 September 3, 

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: 

June 5, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised WBN Unit 1 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.2, 

‘‘[Engineered Safety Feature Actuation 

System] ESFAS Instrumentation.’’ The 

amendment revised the logic connector 

from ‘‘OR’’ to ‘‘AND’’ between 

Condition I, Required Actions I.2.1 and 

I.2.2 of TS 3.3.2. 

Date of issuance: September 8, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 80. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

90: Amendment revises the TS 3.3.2. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 30, 2009 (74 FR 31326). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 

2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day 

of September 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–22605 Filed 9–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. MC2009–42 and CP2009–63; 

Order No. 298] 

New Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recently-filed Postal Service request to 

add Priority Mail Contract 18 to the 

Competitive Product List. The Postal 

Service has also filed a related contract. 

This notice addresses procedural steps 

associated with these filings. 

DATES: Responses to the supplemental 

information request are due September 

21, 2009; comments are due September 

23, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http:// 

www.prc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

at 202–789–6829 or 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

Regulatory History: 74 FR 31374. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

II. Notice of Filings 

III. Supplemental Information 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On September 11, 2009, the Postal 

Service filed a formal request pursuant 

to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 

et seq. to add Priority Mail Contract 18 

to the Competitive Product List.1 The 

Postal Service asserts that Priority Mail 

Contract 18 is a competitive product 

‘‘not of general applicability’’ within the 

meaning of 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3). The 

Postal Service states that prices and 

classification underlying this contract 

are supported by Governors’ Decision 

No. 09–6 in Docket No. MC2009–25. Id. 

at 1. The Request has been assigned 

Docket No. MC2009–42. 

The Postal Service 

contemporaneously filed a contract 

related to the proposed new product 

pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 

CFR 3015.5. The contract has been 

assigned Docket No. CP2009–63. 

Request. In support of its Request, the 

Postal Service filed the following 

materials: (1) A redacted version of the 

Governors’ Decision, filed in Docket No 

MC2009–25, authorizing the Priority 

Mail Contract Group;2 (2) a redacted 

version of the contract;3 (3) a requested 

change in the Mail Classification 

Schedule product list;4 (4) a Statement 

of Supporting Justification as required 

by 39 CFR 3020.32;5 (5) a certification 

of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a);6

and (6) an application for nonpublic 

treatment of the materials filed under 

seal.7

In the Statement of Supporting 

Justification, Mary Prince Anderson, 

Acting Manager, Sales and 

Communications, Expedited Shipping, 

asserts that the service to be provided 

under the contract will cover its 

attributable costs, make a positive 

contribution to institutional costs, and 

increase contribution toward the 

requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal 

Service’s total institutional costs. Id., 

Attachment D. Thus, Ms. Anderson 

contends there will be no issue of 

subsidization of competitive products 

by market dominant products as a result 

of this contract. Id. 

Related contract. A redacted version 

of the specific Priority Mail Contract 18 

is included with the Request. The new 

contract purports to supersede in part a 

prior contract for Express Mail and 

Priority Mail solely with respect to 

Priority Mail. Attachment B at 1. The 

Postal Service will provide the shipper 

with new customized pricing for eligible 

Priority Mail items shipped by the 

shipper, as well as Priority Mail 

packaging. The shipper will manifest 

pieces eligible for customized pricing, 

using a separate permit number to ship 

such pieces, and will use the Electronic 

Verification System (eVS) for shipments 

of such pieces. Id. Annual price 

adjustments will be applied to the 

shipper’s eligible mailpieces. 

The new agreement will become 

effective on the day that the 

Commission provides all necessary 

regulatory approvals. Id. at 3. It is 

terminable upon 30 days’ notice by 

either party, but could continue until 

March 11, 2012 without modification, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES