Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 14, 2009 / Notices 52823 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. 

2. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

[NRC–2009–0453]. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 

301–492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

3. Fax comments to: Rulemaking and 

Directives Branch, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission at (301) 492–3446. 

Requests for technical information 

about DG–1199 may be directed to Mark 

Blumberg at (301) 415–1083 or e-mail to 

Mark.Blumberg@nrc.gov. 

Comments would be most helpful if 

received by December 11, 2009. 

Comments received after that date will 

be considered if it is practical to do so, 

but the NRC is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

Although a time limit is given, 

comments and suggestions in 

connection with items for inclusion in 

guides currently being developed or 

improvements in all published guides 

are encouraged at any time. 

Electronic copies of DG–1199 are 

available through the NRC’s public Web 

site under Draft Regulatory Guides in 

the ‘‘Regulatory Guides’’ collection of 

the NRC’s Electronic Reading 

Room at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/. Electronic copies 

are also available in ADAMS (http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html), 

under Accession No. ML090960464. In 

addition, regulatory guides are available 

for inspection at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) located at 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The PDR’s mailing address is USNRC 

PDR, Washington, DC 20555–0001. The 

PDR can also be reached by telephone 

at (301) 415–4737 or (800) 397–4205, by 

fax at (301) 415–3548, and by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Regulatory guides are not 

copyrighted, and Commission approval 

is not required to reproduce them. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day 

of October 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Andrea D. Valentin, 

Chief, Regulatory Guide Development Branch, 

Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research. 

[FR Doc. E9–24719 Filed 10–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0452; Docket Nos. 50–413 and 

50–414] 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Catawba 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of amendments to Facility 

Operating License No. NPF–35 and 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–52, 

issued to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 

(the licensee), for operation of the 

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 

(Catawba 1 and 2), located in York 

County, South Carolina, in accordance 

with Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) part 50. Therefore, 

as required by 10 CFR part 51, the NRC 

performed an environmental 

assessment. Based on the results of the 

environmental assessment, the NRC is 

issuing a finding of no significant 

impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would revise the 

Technical Specifications (TSs) by 

removing and updating portions of the 

TSs which are outdated or are obsolete 

including footnotes and references. The 

proposed changes are editorial or 

administrative in nature as they update 

the current TSs to reflect changes 

previously approved by the NRC. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

October 8, 2008, as supplemented by 

letter dated May 5, 2009. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed to 

update the TSs and remove out of date 

and obsolete information. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its safety 

evaluation of the proposed action and 

concludes that there are no 

environmental impacts associated with 

granting the subject license amendment 

updating the TSs to remove outdated or 

obsolete information. The details of the 

NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be 

provided in a letter to the licensee upon 

approval of the license amendment. 

The proposed action will not 

significantly increase the probability or 

consequences of accidents. No changes 

are being made in the types of effluents 

that may be released offsite. There is no 

significant increase in the amount of 

any effluent released offsite. There is no 

significant increase in occupational or 

public radiation exposure. Therefore, 

there are no significant radiological 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 

action does not have any foreseeable 

impacts to land, air, or water resources, 

including impacts to biota. In addition, 

there are also no known socioeconomic 

or environmental justice impacts 

associated with such proposed action. 

Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed action. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the staff considered denial of the 

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’ 

alternative). Denial of the application 

would result in no change in current 

environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the alternative action are 

similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for Catawba 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, NUREG– 

0921, dated January 1983 and Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (NUREG–1437, Supplement 

9) dated December 2002. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

On September 23, 2009, the NRC staff 

consulted with the South Carolina State 

official, Mr. Michael Gandy, Department 

of Health and Environmental Control, 

regarding the environmental impact of 

the proposed action. The State official 

had no comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. No substantial 

changes to the facility or its operation 

are associated with the proposed license 

amendment. Accordingly, the NRC has 

determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter 

dated October 8, 2008, as supplemented 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52824 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 14, 2009 / Notices 

by letter dated May 5, 2009. 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 O1 F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible electronically from 

the Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (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 by telephone at 1–800– 

397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an 

e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day 

of October 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Jon Thompson, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II– 

1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–24722 Filed 10–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0451; Docket No. 50–220] 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 

No. 1; Notice of Consideration of 

Issuance of Amendment to Facility 

Operating License, Proposed No 

Significant Hazards Consideration 

Determination, and Opportunity for a 

Hearing 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) is 

considering issuance of an amendment 

to Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

63 issued to Nine Mile Point Nuclear 

Station, LLC (the licensee) for operation 

of Nine Mile Point, Unit No. 1 (NMP1) 

located in Oswego, NY. 

The proposed amendment would 

modify Technical Specification (TS) 

sections 3.2.7.1 and 4.2.7.1, ‘‘Primary 

Coolant System Pressure Isolation 

Valves,’’ to incorporate requirements 

that are consistent with section 3.4.5 of 

the Improved Standard TSs, NUREG– 

1433, Revision 3. The proposed TS 

changes include the addition of 

applicable reactor operating conditions, 

addition of actions to be taken when 

pressure isolation valve (PIV) leakage is 

not within limit, relocation of the PIV 

leakage limit criterion from TS Table 

3.2.7.1 to Specification 4.2.7.1.a, 

replacement of the existing PIV leakage 

test frequencies with a reference to the 

Inservice Testing Program, and deletion 

of TS Table 3.2.7.1, ‘‘Primary Coolant 

System Pressure Isolation Valves.’’ The 

list of PIVs would be relocated from TS 

Table 3.2.7.1 to the NMP1 Updated 

Final Safety Analysis Report, consistent 

with the guidance in Generic Letter (GL) 

91–08, ‘‘Removal of Component Lists 

from Technical Specifications.’’ 

Before issuance of the proposed 

license amendment, the Commission 

will have made findings required by the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s 

regulations. 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

amendment request involves 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. 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 amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment involves 

changes to the TS requirements that apply to 

reactor coolant system (RCS) PIVs. No 

physical plant changes are involved. PIVs 

isolate the boundary between the high 

pressure RCS and connected low pressure 

piping systems. The TS requirements are 

intended to detect PIV degradation that has 

the potential to cause a loss of coolant 

accident (LOCA) outside of containment due 

to the failure of low pressure portions of 

systems connected to the RCS. 

The proposed changes to the TS 

requirements are consistent with NUREG– 

1433, ‘‘Standard Technical Specifications, 

General Electric Plants, BWR/4,’’ and will 

continue to ensure that excessive leakage 

through these valves is properly identified 

and resolved. Testing in accordance with the 

IST [Inservice Testing] Program will continue 

to detect PIV leakage in excess of the 

established limits, which are not being 

changed. When these limits are exceeded, 

required actions will initiate appropriate 

activities to minimize the impact of the 

leakage. These actions will not adversely 

impact nuclear safety because the flow paths 

will be sufficiently isolated, the period of 

time without redundant isolation capability 

will be appropriately limited, and the 

probability of a second valve failing during 

this time period is low. Thus, the proposed 

amendment does not result in operation that 

would make an accident more likely to occur, 

and does not alter assumptions relative to 

mitigation of a previously evaluated accident. 

Relocation of the list of PIVs from the TS 

to a licensee-controlled document (the 

UFSAR) in accordance with the guidance in 

GL 91–08 is an administrative change that 

does not alter the TS requirements that are 

applicable to the PIVs. Based on the above 

discussion, it is concluded that the proposed 

amendment does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment involves 

changes to the TS requirements that apply to 

RCS PIVs. These changes to the TS 

requirements are consistent with NUREG– 

1433. The proposed changes do not involve 

a physical alteration of the plant (no new or 

different type of equipment will be installed) 

or changes in the methods governing normal 

plant operation. The changes also do not alter 

the design function of the PIVs and do not 

adversely affect the ability of the PIVs to 

perform their design function. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment involves 

changes to the TS requirements that apply to 

RCS PIVs. No physical plant changes are 

involved. PIVs isolate the boundary between 

the high pressure RCS and connected low 

pressure piping systems. The revised TS PIV 

requirements will continue to ensure that 

excessive leakage through these valves is 

properly identified and resolved, such that a 

LOCA outside of containment due to the 

failure of low pressure portions of systems 

connected to the RCS will be no more likely 

to occur. Thus, the proposed amendment will 

not result in a design basis or safety limit 

being exceeded or altered. 

Based on the above discussion, it is 

concluded that the proposed amendment 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES