52986 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 198 / Thursday, October 15, 2009 / Notices 

Members of the public desiring to 

provide oral statements and/or written 

comments should notify the Designated 

Federal Officer, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy, 

(Telephone: 301–415–7364, E-mail: 

Sam.Duraiswamy@nrc.gov) five days 

prior to the meeting, if possible, so that 

appropriate arrangements can be made. 

Electronic recordings will be permitted 

only during those portions of the 

meeting that are open to the public. 

Detailed procedures for the conduct of 

and participation in ACRS meetings 

were published in the Federal Register 

on October 6, 2008, (73 FR 58268– 

58269). 

Further information regarding this 

meeting can be obtained by contacting 

the Designated Federal Official between 

7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET). Persons 

planning to attend this meeting are 

urged to contact the above named 

individual at least two working days 

prior to the meeting to be advised of any 

potential changes in the agenda. 

Dated: October 8, 2009. 

Antonio F. Dias, 

Chief, Reactor Safety Branch B, Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. E9–24771 Filed 10–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the 

ACRS Subcommittee; Notice of 

Meeting 

The ACRS Subcommittee on 

Radiation Protection and Nuclear 

Materials will hold a meeting on 

November 4, 2009, Room T2–B3, 11545 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The meeting will be open to public 

attendance. 

The agenda for the subject meeting 

shall be as follows: 

Wednesday, November 4, 2009—1:30 

p.m.–5 p.m. 

The Subcommittee will review 

proposed changes to NUREG–1520 

‘‘Standard Review Plan for Review of a 

License Application for a Fuel Cycle 

Facility.’’ The Subcommittee will hear 

presentations by and hold discussions 

with NRC staff and other interested 

persons regarding this matter. The 

Subcommittee will gather information, 

analyze relevant issues and facts, and 

formulate proposed positions and 

actions, as appropriate, for deliberation 

by the full Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to 

provide oral statements and/or written 

comments should notify the Designated 

Federal Official, Dr. John H. Flack, 

(telephone: 301–415–0426, e-mail: 

John.Flack@nrc.gov) five days prior to 

the meeting, if possible, so that 

appropriate arrangements can be made. 

Thirty-five hard copies of each 

presentation or handout should be 

provided to the Designated Federal 

Official 30 minutes before the meeting. 

In addition, one electronic copy of each 

presentation should be e-mailed to the 

Designated Federal Official 1 day before 

the meeting. If an electronic copy 

cannot be provided within this 

timeframe, presenters should provide 

the Designated Federal Official with a 

CD containing each presentation at least 

30 minutes before the meeting. 

Electronic recordings will be permitted. 

Detailed procedures for the conduct of 

and participation in ACRS meetings 

were published in the Federal Register 

on October 6, 2008 (73 FR 58268– 

58269). 

Further information regarding this 

meeting can be obtained by contacting 

the Designated Federal Official between 

7 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. (ET). Persons 

planning to attend this meeting are 

urged to contact the above named 

individual at least two working days 

prior to the meeting to be advised of any 

potential changes to the agenda. 

Dated: October 7, 2009. 

Antonio F. Dias, 

Chief, Reactor Safety Branch B, Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. E9–24782 Filed 10–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the 

ACRS Subcommittee; Notice of 

Meeting 

The ACRS U.S. Evolutionary Power 

Reactor (EPR) Subcommittee will hold a 

meeting on November 3, 2009, 11545 

Rockville Pike, T2–B3, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to 

public attendance. 

The agenda for the subject meeting 

shall be as follows: 

Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 8:30 a.m.– 

5 p.m. 

The Subcommittee will review 

selected chapters of the Safety 

Evaluation with Open Items concerning 

the U.S. EPR Design Certification 

Application. The Subcommittee will 

hear presentations by and hold 

discussions with representatives of 

AREVA, the NRC staff and other 

interested persons regarding this matter. 

The Subcommittee will gather 

information, analyze relevant issues and 

facts, and formulate proposed positions 

and actions, as appropriate, for 

deliberation by the full Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to 

provide oral statements and/or written 

comments should notify the Designated 

Federal Official, Mr. Derek Widmayer 

(Telephone 301–415–7366, E-mail: 

Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov) five days 

prior to the meeting, if possible, so that 

appropriate arrangements can be made. 

Thirty-five hard copies of each 

presentation or handout should be 

provided to the Designated Federal 

Official 30 minutes before the meeting. 

In addition, one electronic copy of each 

presentation should be e-mailed to the 

Designated Federal Official 1 day before 

the meeting. If an electronic copy 

cannot be provided within this 

timeframe, presenters should provide 

the Designated Federal Official with a 

CD containing each presentation at least 

30 minutes before the meeting. 

Electronic recordings will be permitted. 

Detailed procedures for the conduct of 

and participation in ACRS meetings 

were published in the Federal Register 

on October 6, 2008 (73 FR 58268– 

58269). 

Further information regarding this 

meeting can be obtained by contacting 

the Designated Federal Official between 

8 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. (ET). Persons 

planning to attend this meeting are 

urged to contact the above named 

individual at least two working days 

prior to the meeting to be advised of any 

potential changes to the agenda. 

Dated: October 8, 2009. 

Antonio Dias, 

Chief, Reactor Safety Branch B, Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. E9–24781 Filed 10–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0455] 

Notice of Opportunity for Public 

Comment on the Proposed Models for 

Plant-Specific Adoption of Technical 

Specification Task Force Traveler-508, 

Revision 1, ‘‘Revise Control Room 

Habitability Actions To Address 

Lessons Learned From TSTF–448 

Implementation’’ 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public 

comment. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 198 / Thursday, October 15, 2009 / Notices 52987 

SUMMARY: The NRC is requesting public 

comment on the enclosed proposed 

model safety evaluation, model no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination, and model application 

for plant-specific adoption of Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler-508, Revision 1, ‘‘Revise 

Control Room Habitability Actions to 

Address Lessons Learned from TSTF– 

448 Implementation.’’ The TSTF 

Traveler-508, Revision 1, is available in 

the Agencywide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS) under 

Accession Number ML091690643. The 

proposed changes would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) [3.7.10, 

‘‘Control Room Emergency Filtration 

System]’’ the Bases for TS [3.7.10], and 

TS [5.5.18], ‘‘Control Room Envelope 

Habitability Program,’’ to pursue TS 

improvements consistent with the 

justification in TSTF–448, Revision 3, 

‘‘Control Room Habitability,’’ while 

addressing inconsistencies with TSTF 

Traveler-448. This model safety 

evaluation will facilitate expedited 

approval of plant-specific adoption of 

TSTF Traveler-508, Revision 1. 

DATES: Comment period expires 

November 16, 2009. Comments received 

after this date will be considered, if it 

is practical to do so, but the 

Commission is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods. 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2009– 

0455 in the subject line of your 

comments. Comments submitted in 

writing or in electronic form will be 

posted on the NRC Web site and on the 

Federal rulemaking Web site 

Regulations.gov. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. 

The NRC requests that any party 

soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore, they 

should not include any information in 

their comments that they do not want 

publicly disclosed. 

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2009–0455. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 

301–492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Michael T. Lesar, 

Chief, Rulemaking and Directives 

Branch (RDB), Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05– 

B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, or by fax to RDB at (301) 492– 

3446. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this notice using 

the following methods: 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 

File Area O1 F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, 

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The Proposed 

Model Safety Evaluation for PlantSpecific Adoption of TSTF Traveler508, Revision 1, is available 

electronically under ADAMS Accession 

Number ML092570577. 

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public 

comments and supporting materials 

related to this notice can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

on Docket ID: NRC–2009–0455. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Michelle C. Honcharik, Senior Project 

Manager, Special Projects Branch, Mail 

Stop: O–12D1, Division of Policy and 

Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; telephone 301–415–1774 or e-mail 

at michelle.honcharik@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions please contact Mr. 

Matthew Hamm, Reactor Systems 

Engineer, Technical Specifications 

Branch, Division of Inspection and 

Regional Support, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone 301–415– 

1472 or e-mail at 

matthew.hamm@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This notice provides an opportunity 

for the public to comment on proposed 

changes to the Standard TS (STS) after 

a preliminary assessment and finding by 

the NRC staff that the agency will likely 

offer the changes for adoption by 

licensees. This notice solicits comment 

on a proposed change to the STS that 

modifies the TS. The NRC staff will 

evaluate any comments received for the 

proposed change to the STS and 

reconsider the change or announce the 

availability of the change for adoption 

by licensees. Licensees opting to apply 

for this TS change are responsible for 

reviewing the NRC staff’s evaluation, 

referencing the applicable technical 

justifications, and providing any 

necessary plant-specific information. 

The NRC will process and note each 

amendment application responding to 

the notice of availability according to 

applicable NRC rules and procedures. 

Applicability 

TSTF Traveler-508, Revision 1, is 

applicable to pressurized and boiling 

water reactors. The Traveler revises the 

TS and TS Bases for TS [3.7.10] 

Condition B, TS [3.7.10] Condition [E], 

and TS [5.5.18], ‘‘Control Room 

Habitability Program.’’ 

The proposed change does not 

prevent licensees from requesting an 

alternate approach or proposing changes 

other than those proposed in TSTF 

Traveler-508, Revision 1. However, 

significant deviations from the approach 

recommended in this notice or the 

inclusion of additional changes to the 

license require additional NRC staff 

review. This may increase the time and 

resources needed for the review or 

result in NRC staff rejection of the LAR. 

Licensees desiring significant deviations 

or additional changes should instead 

submit an LAR that does not claim to 

adopt TSTF Traveler-508, Revision 1. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day 

of October 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Stacey L. Rosenberg, 

Chief, Special Projects Branch, Division of 

Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation. 

The following example of an application 

was prepared by the NRC staff to facilitate 

the adoption of technical specifications task 

force (TSTF) Traveler-508, Revision 1, 

‘‘Revise control room habitability actions to 

address lessons learned from TSTF–448 

implementation.’’ The model provides the 

expected level of detail and content for an 

application to adopt Traveler-508, Revision 

1. Licensees remain responsible for ensuring 

that their actual application fulfills their 

administrative requirements as well as NRC 

regulations. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52988 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 198 / Thursday, October 15, 2009 / Notices 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Document Control Desk, 

Washington, DC 20555. 

Subject: PLANT NAME 

DOCKET NO. 50–[xxx] 

APPLICATION FOR TECHNICAL 

SPECIFICATION IMPROVEMENT 

TO ADOPT TSTF TRAVELER–508, 

REVISION 1, ‘‘REVISE CONTROL 

ROOM HABITABILITY ACTIONS 

TO ADDRESS LESSONS LEARNED 

FROM TSTF–448 

IMPLEMENTATION. 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), 

[LICENSEE] is submitting a request for 

an amendment to the Technical 

Specifications (TS) for [PLANT NAME, 

UNIT NOS.]. The proposed changes 

would address inconsistencies in 

[PLANT NAME] TS due to the adoption 

of TSTF Traveler-448, Revision 3, TS 

changes. The changes are consistent 

with NRC-approved Industry Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Standard Technical Specification 

Change Traveler-508 Revision 1. The 

availability of this TS improvement was 

announced in the Federal Register on 

[DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]) as part of the 

consolidated line item improvement 

process (CLIIP). 

Attachment 1 provides a description 

of the proposed change. Attachment 2 

provides the existing TS pages marked 

to show the proposed change. 

Attachment 3 provides the existing TS 

Bases pages marked up to show the 

proposed change. Attachment 4 

provides the proposed TS changes in 

final typed format. Attachment 5 

provides the proposed TS Bases changes 

in final typed format. 

[LICENSEE] requests approval of the 

proposed license amendment by 

[DATE], with the amendment being 

implemented [BY DATE OR WITHIN X 

DAYS]. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, 

‘‘Notice for Public Comment; State 

Consultation,’’ a copy of this 

application, with attachments, is being 

provided to the designated [STATE] 

Official. 

I declare [or certify, verify, state] 

under penalty of perjury that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on [Date] [Signature] 

If you should have any questions 

about this submittal, please contact 

[NAME, TELEPHONE NUMBER]. 

Sincerely, 

[Name, Title] 

Attachments: 1. Evaluation of 

Proposed Change 

2. Proposed Technical Specification 

Changes (Mark-Up) 

3. Proposed Technical Specification 

Bases Changes (Mark-Up) 

4. Proposed Technical Specification 

Change (Re-Typed) 

5. Proposed Technical Specification 

Bases Changes (Re-Typed) 

cc: [NRR Project Manager] 

[Regional Office] 

[Resident Inspector] 

[State Contact] 

Robert Elliot, NRR/DIRS/ITSB Branch 

Chief. 

Attachment 1—Evaluation of Proposed 

Change 

1.0 Description 

This letter is a request to amend 

Operating License(s) [LICENSE 

NUMBER(S)] for [PLANT/UNIT 

NAME(S)]. The proposed changes 

would revise Technical Specification 

(TS) [3.7.10, ‘‘Control Room Emergency 

Filtration System]’’ the Bases for TS 

[3.7.10], and TS [5.5.18], ‘‘Control Room 

Envelope Habitability Program,’’ to 

pursue TS improvements consistent 

with the justification in Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) change 

Traveler-448, Revision 3, ‘‘Control 

Room Habitability,’’ while addressing 

inconsistencies with TSTF–448. 

TSTF Traveler-508, Revision 1, 

‘‘Revise Control Room Habitability 

Actions to Address Lessons Learned 

from TSTF–448 Implementation,’’ was 

announced for availability in the 

Federal Register on [DATE] as part of 

the consolidated line item improvement 

process (CLIIP). 

2.0 Proposed Changes 

Consistent with NRC-approved TSTF 

Traveler-508, Revision 1, the following 

changes are proposed for TS [3.7.10] 

Condition B: 

• Delete the mode restrictions in the 

Condition statement. 

• Add new Required Action B.[2] 

which requires immediate suspension of 

movement of [recently] irradiated fuel. 

• [add new Required Action B.[3], 

which requires immediate initiation of 

actions to suspend OPDRVs.] 

• Renumber Required Actions in 

Condition B. 

• Change language in renumbered 

Required Action B.[4] from, ‘‘verify 

mitigating actions ensure CRE occupant 

exposures to radiological, chemical, and 

smoke hazards will not exceed limits.’’ 

to ‘‘verify mitigating actions ensure CRE 

occupant radiological exposures will 

not exceed limits, and CRE occupants 

are protected from chemical and smoke 

hazards.’’ 

Consistent with NRC-approved TSTF 

Traveler-508, Revision 1, the following 

changes are proposed for TS [3.7.10] 

Condition [E]: 

• Add the phrase ‘‘for conditions 

other than Condition B.’’ to the end of 

the first Condition statement. 

• Change the second Condition 

statement to ‘‘[Required Actions and 

associated Completion Times of 

Condition B not met [in MODE 5 or 6, 

or] during movement of [recently] 

irradiated fuel assemblies./Required 

Actions and associated Completion 

Times of Condition B not met during 

movement of [recently] irradiated fuel 

assemblies in the [secondary/primary or 

secondary] containment or during 

OPDRVs.]’’ 

Consistent with NRC-approved TSTF 

Traveler-508, Revision 1, the following 

changes are proposed for TS [5.5.18], 

‘‘Control Room Habitability Program’’: 

• Revise the last sentence of 

Paragraph [d] of TS [5.5.18], ‘‘Control 

Room Habitability Program’’ from ‘‘The 

results shall be trended and used as part 

of the [18] month assessment of the CRE 

boundary.’’ to ‘‘The results shall be 

trended and used as part of the periodic 

assessment of the CRE boundary.’’ 

This application is being made in 

accordance with the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] 

is [not] proposing variations or 

deviations from the TS changes 

described in TSTF Traveler-508, 

Revision 1, or the NRC staff’s model 

safety evaluation published on [DATE] 

([ ] FR [ ]) as part of the CLIIP Notice 

of Availability. [Discuss any differences 

with TSTF Traveler-508, Revision 1, 

and the effect of any changes on the 

NRC staff’s model safety evaluation.] 

3.0 Background 

The background for this application is 

as stated in the model safety evaluation 

in NRC’s Notice of Availability 

published on [DATE ] ([ ] FR [ ]) and 

TSTF Traveler-508, Revision 1. 

4.0 Technical Analysis 

[LICENSEE] has reviewed TSTF 

Traveler-508, Revision 1, and the model 

safety evaluation published on [DATE] 

([ ] FR [ ]) as part of the CLIIP Notice 

of Availability. [LICENSEE] has 

concluded that the justifications 

presented in TSTF Traveler-508, 

Revision 1, and the model safety 

evaluation prepared by the NRC staff are 

applicable to [PLANT, UNIT NOS.], and 

justify this amendment for the 

incorporation of the changes to the 

[PLANT] TS. 

[LICENSEE] [will] adopt[ed] and 

implement[ed] changes to the TS for 

[PLANT, UNIT NOS.] based on TSTF 

Traveler-448, Revision 3, [on DATE— 

or—concurrent with adoption and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 198 / Thursday, October 15, 2009 / Notices 52989 

implementation of TS changes based on 

TSTF Traveler-508, Revision 1]. 

[Provide discussion and justification 

for any plant-specific items not 

addressed in the NRC staff’s model 

safety evaluation.] 

5.0 Regulatory Analysis 

5.1 No Significant Hazards 

Determination 

[LICENSEE] has reviewed the no 

significant hazards determination 

published on [DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]) as 

part of the CLIIP Notice of Availability. 

[LICENSEE] and has concluded that the 

determination presented in the notice is 

applicable to [PLANT, UNIT NO.]. 

[LICENSEE] has evaluated the proposed 

changes to the TS using the criteria in 

10 CFR 50.92 and has determined that 

the proposed changes do not involve a 

significant hazards consideration. An 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration is presented 

below: 

[LICENSEE INSERT ANALYSIS 

HERE.] 

5.2 Applicable Regulatory 

Requirements/Criteria 

A description of this proposed change 

and its relationship to applicable 

regulatory requirements and guidance 

was provided in the NRC Notice of 

Availability published on [DATE] ([ ] 

FR [ ]), and TSTF–508, Revision 1. 

[LICENSEE] has reviewed the NRC 

staff’s model safety evaluation 

published on [DATE] ([ ] FR[ ]) as 

part of the CLIIP Notice of Availability 

and concluded that the regulatory 

evaluation section is applicable to 

[PLANT, UNIT NO.] 

6.0 Environmental Evaluation 

[LICENSEE] has reviewed the 

environmental consideration included 

in the model SE published in the 

Federal Register on [DATE] ([ ] FR 

[ ]) as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] 

has concluded that the staff’s findings 

presented therein are applicable to 

[PLANT] and the determination is 

hereby incorporated by reference for 

this application. 

The proposed change would change a 

requirement with respect to installation 

or use of a facility component located 

within the restricted area, as defined in 

10 CFR part 20, and would change an 

inspection or surveillance requirement. 

However, the proposed change does not 

involve (i) a significant hazards 

consideration, (ii) a significant change 

in the types or significant increase in 

the amounts of any effluent that may be 

released offsite, or (iii) a significant 

increase in individual or cumulative 

occupational radiation exposure. 

Accordingly, the proposed change meets 

the eligibility criterion for categorical 

exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 

51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 

CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact 

statement or environmental assessment 

need be prepared in connection with the 

proposed change. 

7.0 References 

1. Federal Register Notice, Notice of 

Availability published on [DATE] 

([ ] FR [ ]). 

2. TSTF Traveler-508, Revision 1, 

‘‘Revise Control Room Habitability 

Actions to Address Lessons Learned 

from TSTF–448 Implementation.’’ 

[3. Other References] 

Proposed Model Safety Evaluation for 

Plant-Specific Adoption of TSTF 

Traveler-508, Revision 1, ‘‘Revise 

Control Room Habitability Actions To 

Address Lessons Learned From TSTF– 

448 Implementation’’ 

1.0 Introduction 

By letter dated [DATE], [LICENSEE] 

(the licensee) proposed changes to the 

technical specifications (TS) for [PLANT 

NAME]. The proposed changes would 

allow [PLANT NAME] to address 

inconsistencies in Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Improved Standard Technical 

Specification (STS) Change Traveler448, Revision 3. 

The proposed changes would revise 

TS [3.7.10] Condition B as follows: 

• Delete the mode restrictions in the 

Condition statement. 

• Add new Required Action B.[2] 

which requires immediate suspension of 

movement of [recently] irradiated fuel. 

• [add new Required Action B.[3], 

which requires immediate initiation of 

actions to suspend OPDRVs.] 

• Renumber Required Actions in 

Condition B. 

• Change language in renumbered 

Required Action B.[4] from, ‘‘verify 

mitigating actions ensure CRE occupant 

exposures to radiological, chemical, and 

smoke hazards will not exceed limits.’’ 

to ‘‘verify mitigating actions ensure CRE 

occupant radiological exposures will 

not exceed limits, and CRE occupants 

are protected from chemical and smoke 

hazards.’’ 

The proposed changes would revise 

TS [3.7.10] Condition [E] as follows: 

• Add the phrase ‘‘for conditions 

other than Condition B.’’ to the end of 

the first Condition statement. 

• Change the second Condition 

statement to ‘‘[Required Actions and 

associated Completion Times of 

Condition B not met [in MODE 5 or 6, 

or] during movement of [recently] 

irradiated fuel assemblies./Required 

Actions and associated Completion 

Times of Condition B not met during 

movement of [recently] irradiated fuel 

assemblies in the [secondary/primary or 

secondary] containment or during 

OPDRVs.]’’ 

The proposed changes would revise 

TS [5.5.18], ‘‘Control Room Habitability 

Program’’ as follows: 

• Revise the last sentence of 

paragraph [d] of TS [5.5.18], ‘‘Control 

Room Habitability Program’’ from ‘‘The 

results shall be trended and used as part 

of the [18] month assessment of the CRE 

boundary.’’ to ‘‘The results shall be 

trended and used as part of the periodic 

assessment of the CRE boundary.’’ 

The licensee stated that the 

application is consistent with NRCapproved Revision 1 to TSTF Traveler508, Revise Control Room Habitability 

Actions to Address Lessons Learned 

from TSTF–448 Implementation.’’ 

[Discuss any differences with TSTF– 

508, Revision 1.] The availability of this 

TS improvement was announced in the 

Federal Register on [Date] ([ ] FR [ ]) as 

part of the consolidated line item 

improvement process (CLIIP). 

2.0 Regulatory Evaluation 

Section 182a of the Atomic Energy 

Act (the ‘‘Act’’) requires applicants for 

nuclear power plant operating licenses 

to include TS as part of the license. The 

TS ensure the operational capability of 

structures, systems and components that 

are required to protect the health and 

safety of the public. The Commission’s 

regulatory requirements related to the 

content of the TS are contained in Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) Section 50.36. This regulation 

requires that the TS include items in the 

following specific categories: (1) Safety 

limits, limiting safety systems settings, 

and limiting control settings (10 CFR 

50.36(c).(1)); (2) limiting conditions for 

operation (10 CFR 50.36(c).(2)); (3) 

surveillance requirements (10 CFR 

50.36(c)(3)); (4) design features (10 CFR 

50.36(c)(4)); and (5) administrative 

controls (10 CFR 50.36(c).(5)). 

In general, there are two classes of 

changes to TS: (1) Changes needed to 

reflect modifications to the design basis 

(TS are derived from the design basis), 

and (2) voluntary changes to take 

advantage of the evolution in policy and 

guidance as to the required content and 

preferred format of TS over time. This 

amendment deals with the second class 

of changes. 

Licensees may revise the TS to adopt 

current improved STS format and 

content provided that plant-specific 

review supports a finding of continued 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52990 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 198 / Thursday, October 15, 2009 / Notices 

adequate safety because: (1) The change 

is editorial, administrative or provides 

clarification (i.e., no requirements are 

materially altered); (2) the change is 

more restrictive than the licensee’s 

current requirement; or (3) the change is 

less restrictive than the licensee’s 

current requirement, but nonetheless 

still affords adequate assurance of safety 

when judged against current regulatory 

standards. The detailed application of 

this general framework, and additional 

specialized guidance, are discussed in 

Section 3.0 in the context of specific 

proposed changes. 

3.0 Technical Evaluation 

The NRC staff has found changes 

made by TSTF Traveler-508, Revision 1, 

to the STS, as amended by TSTF 

Traveler-448, Revision 3, to satisfy 

applicable regulatory requirements, as 

described above in Section 2.0. The 

NRC staff reviewed the licensee’s 

proposed TS changes against the 

corresponding changes made by TSTF 

Traveler-508, Revision 1. 

3.1 Proposed Changes 

The NRC staff compared the proposed 

TS changes to the STS and the STS 

markups and evaluations in TSTF 

Traveler-508. [The NRC staff verified 

that differences from the STS as 

amended by TSTF Traveler-448 were 

adequately justified on the basis of 

plant-specific design or retention of 

current licensing basis.] The NRC staff 

also reviewed the proposed changes to 

the TS Bases for consistency with the 

STS Bases and the plant-specific design 

and licensing bases, although approval 

of the TS Bases is not a condition for 

accepting the proposed amendment. 

3.2 TS [3.7.10, ‘‘Control Room 

Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS)] 

Condition B 

As stated in Section 1.0, the licensee 

proposed several changes to Condition 

B. The first proposed change would 

delete the phrase ‘‘in MODE 1, 2, 3, or 

4’’ from the Condition B statement. This 

change would mean the licensee would 

have to complete the Required Actions 

of Condition B within the associated 

Completion Times while in all MODES 

and situations listed in the 

APPLICABILITY statement. The 

licensee also proposed adding new 

Required Action B.2 and a Note as well 

as renumbering Required Actions B.2 

and B.3. New Required Action B.2 

requires the licensee to immediately 

suspend movement of [recently] 

irradiated fuel assemblies when one or 

more [CREVS] is inoperable due to an 

inoperable Control Room Envelope 

(CRE) boundary. The Note above new 

Required Action B.[2] states ‘‘Not 

required following completion of 

Required Action B.[3].’’ [The licensee 

also proposed adding new Required 

Action B.3 and a Note. New Required 

Action B.3 requires the licensee to 

immediately initiate action to suspend 

Operations with the Potential to Drain 

the Reactor Vessel (OPDRVs) when one 

or more [CREVS] is inoperable due to an 

inoperable Control Room Envelope 

(CRE) boundary. The Note above new 

Required Action B.3 states ‘‘Not 

required following completion of 

Required Action B.[4].] Finally, the 

licensee proposed rewording the 

renumbered Required Action [3] from 

‘‘Verify mitigating actions ensure CRE 

occupant exposures to radiological, 

chemical, and smoke hazards will not 

exceed limits’’ to ‘‘Verify mitigating 

actions ensure CRE occupant 

radiological exposures will not exceed 

limits, and CRE occupants are protected 

from chemical and smoke hazards.’’ 

The NRC staff reviewed the licensee’s 

proposed TS changes. The NRC staff 

determined that the removal of MODE 

restrictions and the addition of the [two] 

new Required Action[s] constituted a 

relaxation compared to the STS as 

amended by TSTF Traveler-448. The 

NRC staff also determined that the STS 

as amended by TSTF Traveler-448 were 

overly restrictive in that movement of 

[irradiated] fuel [and OPDRVs] is [are] 

not allowed when a CRE is inoperable, 

even if compensatory measures are 

taken to confirm CRE occupants will be 

protected in the event of a Design Basis 

Accident (DBA). The NRC staff 

determined that the relaxation is 

justified and acceptable because the 

addition of the new Required Action[s] 

ensure that CRE occupants would 

continue to be protected from 

radiological, chemical, and smoke 

hazards during the time a CRE may be 

inoperable. The NRC staff also 

determined that changing the language 

of Required Action B.[3] was acceptable 

since quantifiable limits on smoke and 

chemicals hazards do not exist in the 

safety evaluation for TSTF Traveler-448, 

and the proposed change addresses the 

inconsistency between the STS as 

amended by TSTF Traveler-448 and the 

model safety evaluation for TSTF 

Traveler-448. 

3.3 TS [3.7.10, ‘‘Control Room 

Emergency Ventilation System 

(CREVS)’’] Condition [E] 

The licensee proposed rewording the 

two condition statements separated by 

the OR operator that make up Condition 

[E] of TS [3.7.10]. The proposed changes 

are necessary to make the conditions 

consistent with the removal of the 

MODE restrictions of Condition B. 

Condition [E] is currently worded as 

such: ‘‘[Two CREVS trains inoperable 

[in MODE 5 or 6, or] during movement 

of [recently] irradiated fuel assemblies 

[in the secondary containment or during 

OPDRVs] OR One or more CREVS trains 

inoperable due to an inoperable CRE 

boundary [in MODE 5 or 6, or] during 

movement of [recently] irradiated fuel 

assemblies [in the secondary 

containment or during OPDRVs].’’ The 

proposed rewording is: ‘‘[Two CREVS 

trains inoperable [in MODE 5 or 6, or] 

during movement of [recently] 

irradiated fuel assemblies [in the 

secondary containment or during 

OPDRVs] for reasons other than 

Condition B OR Required Actions and 

associated Completion Times of 

Condition B not met [in MODE 5 or 6, 

or] during movement of [recently ] 

irradiated fuel assemblies [in the 

secondary containment or during 

OPDRVs].’’ 

The NRC staff reviewed the proposed 

rewording of Condition [E] and 

determined that the rewording was 

editorial because it was necessary to 

maintain consistency with the changes 

made to Condition B and no 

requirements or restrictions on 

operations were altered. Therefore the 

proposed changes are acceptable. 

3.4 S [5.5.18], ‘‘Control Room 

Habitability Program’’ 

The licensee proposed replacing the 

term ‘‘18 month’’ with the term 

‘‘periodic’’ in the last sentence of TS 

[5.5.18] Paragraph d. The NRC staff 

determined that the term ‘‘18 month’’ in 

the last sentence of Paragraph d of TS 

[5.518] was inconsistent with the 

licensee’s Control Room Habitability 

Program. The NRC staff determined that 

the STS, as amended by TSTF Traveler448 incorrectly used the term ‘‘18 

month’’ to describe the assessment 

referred to in the last sentence of 

Paragraph d of the Control Room 

Habitability Program. The NRC staff 

determined that the proposed change is 

editorial since no requirements are 

materially altered and the change will 

address an inconsistency in TSTF 

Traveler-448. Therefore the change is 

acceptable. 

4.0 State Consultation 

In accordance with the Commission’s 

regulations, the [STATE NAME] State 

official was notified of the proposed 

issuance of the amendment. The State 

official had [(1) no comments or (2) the 

following comments—with subsequent 

disposition by the NRC staff]. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 198 / Thursday, October 15, 2009 / Notices 52991 

5.0 Environmental Consideration 

The amendment[s] change[s] a 

requirement with respect to the 

installation or use of a facility 

component located within the restricted 

area as defined in 10 CFR part 20 or 

surveillance requirements. The NRC 

staff has determined that the 

amendment involves no significant 

increase in the amounts, and no 

significant change in the types, of any 

effluents that may be released offsite, 

and that there is no significant increase 

in individual or cumulative 

occupational radiation exposure. The 

Commission has previously issued a 

proposed finding that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration and there has been no 

public comment on such finding 

published [DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]). 

Accordingly, the amendment meets the 

eligibility criteria for categorical 

exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 

51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 

no environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment need be 

prepared in connection with the 

issuance of the amendment. 

6.0 Conclusion 

The NRC staff has concluded, based 

on the considerations discussed above, 

that: (1) There is reasonable assurance 

that the health and safety of the public 

will not be endangered by operation in 

the proposed manner; (2) such activities 

will be conducted in compliance with 

the Commission’s regulations; and (3) 

the issuance of the amendments will not 

be inimical to the common defense and 

security or to the health and safety of 

the public. 

7.0 References 

1. License Amendment Request dated 

[DATE], [Title of Amendment 

Request], ADAMS Accession No. 

[MLXXXXXXXXX]. 

2. Federal Register Notice of 

Availability for TSTF Traveler-448 

Revision 3, ‘‘Control Room 

Habitability,’’ dated January 17, 

2007 (72 FR 2022). 

3. Federal Register Notice of 

Availability for TSTF Traveler-508, 

Revision 1, ‘‘Revise Control Room 

Habitability Actions to Address 

Lessons Learned from TSTF–448 

Implementation,’’ dated [DATE] ([ ] 

FR [ ]).]. 

Proposed Model No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination for PlantSpecific Adoption of TSTF Traveler508, Revision 1, ‘‘Revise Control Room 

Habitability Actions To Address 

Lessons Learned From TSTF–448 

Implementation’’ 

Description of Amendment Request: 

[Plant name] requests adoption of an 

approved change to the standard 

technical specifications (STS), as 

amended by Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 

Specification Change Traveler-448, 

Revision 3, ‘‘Control Room Habitability’’ 

and TSTF Traveler-508, Revision 1, 

‘‘Revise Control Room Habitability 

Actions to Address Lessons Learned 

from TSTF–448 Implementation.’’ TSTF 

Traveler-508, Revision 1, revised the 

STS, as previously amended by TSTF 

Traveler-448, Revision 3, to address 

inconsistencies with TSTF Traveler-448, 

Revision 3. The licensee’s proposed 

changes are consistent with NRCapproved TSTF Traveler-508, Revision 

1. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: As 

required by Title10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 

50.91(a), the [LICENSEE] analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration is presented below: 

Criterion 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 adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors nor 

alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 

configuration of the facility. The proposed 

changes do 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. This 

is a revision to the TSs for the control room 

ventilation system, which is a mitigation 

system designed to minimize unfiltered air 

inleakage into the control room envelope 

(CRE) and to filter the CRE atmosphere to 

protect the CRE occupants following 

accidents previously analyzed. An important 

part of the system is the CRE boundary. 

Under the proposed change, the movement of 

irradiated fuel and operations with the 

potential to drain the reactor vessel may be 

resumed following confirmation that the CRE 

occupants will be protected in the event of 

a DBA. This ensures that the consequences 

of an accident previously evaluation are not 

significantly increased. The CRE ventilation 

system is not an initiator or precursor to any 

accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the 

probability of any accident previously 

evaluated is not increased. The consequences 

of an accident during the proposed Actions 

are not significantly increased as the Actions 

require verification that the CRE occupants 

are protected by the required mitigating 

actions. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: Does the Proposed Change 

Create the Possibility of a New or Different 

Kind of Accident from any Previously 

Evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This revision will not impact the accident 

analysis. The changes will not alter the 

requirements of the CRE ventilation system 

or its function during accident conditions. 

No new or different accidents result from 

performing the new surveillance or following 

the new program. The changes do 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 changes do not alter assumptions made 

in the safety analysis. The proposed changes 

are consistent with the safety analysis 

assumptions and current plant operating 

practice. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 3: Does the Proposed Change 

Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin 

of Safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not alter the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined. The safety analysis 

acceptance criteria are not affected by these 

changes. The proposed changes will not 

result in plant operation in a configuration 

outside the design basis. Compensatory 

measures are required to be established in 

order to maintain plant operation in a 

configuration that is within the design basis. 

The proposed changes do not adversely affect 

systems that respond to safely shutdown the 

plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 

shutdown condition. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment would 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

Based on the NRC staff’s review of the 

licensee’s analysis, the NRC staff concludes 

that the proposed amendment presents no 

significant hazards consideration under the 

standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c) and, 

accordingly, a finding of ‘‘no significant 

hazards consideration’’ is justified. 

[FR Doc. E9–24773 Filed 10–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

[(OMB Control No. 3206–0138; Form RI 30– 

9)] 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request for Review of a 

Revised Information Collection 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES