9008 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 38 / Friday, February 27, 2009 / Notices 

BIA, USACE, Caltrans, and Sonoma 

County as cooperating agencies. Due to 

a change in project alternatives, the 

NIGC released a supplemental NOI 

(Federal Register September 29, 2005) 

and Scoping Report (January 2006). 

A NOA for the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) was published 

in the Federal Register on March 9, 

2007. The DEIS addressed the issues 

and concerns summarized within the 

scoping reports, to the extent required 

by NEPA. Seven alternatives were 

evaluated in detail in the DEIS, 

including development on one of three 

alternatives sites (Wilfred, Stony Point, 

and Lakeville) and a no action 

alternative. The proposed project/action 

(Alternative A) includes a casino/hotel 

resort on a site west of Rohnert Park (the 

Wilfred site). The casino/hotel resort 

would include restaurants, a hotel, an 

entertainment venue, gaming space, 

banquet/meeting space, and a pool and 

spa. In addition to the casino/hotel 

facility, the proposed development 

would also include on-site parking and 

an on-site tertiary wastewater treatment 

plant. 

Alternative B consists of the 

development of a casino/hotel resort 

nearly identical to that proposed under 

Alternative A, but located on the 

northwest corner of an adjacent site, 

slightly further west of Rohnert Park 

(the Stony Point site). Alternative C also 

consists of the development of a casino/ 

hotel resort nearly identical to that 

proposed under Alternative A. 

However, the Alternative C casino/hotel 

resort would be located on the northeast 

corner of the Stony Point site. 

Alternative D consists of a smaller-scale 

version of Alternative B. Alternative E 

consists of a business park development 

located on the northwest corner of the 

Stony Point site. Alternative F consists 

of the development of a casino/hotel 

resort nearly identical to that proposed 

under Alternative A but located on a 

different site in southern Sonoma 

County near the intersection of State 

Route 37 and the Lakeville Highway 

(the Lakeville site). Alternative G is the 

no project/action alternative, under 

which the NIGC would not approve the 

management contract. 

The DEIS was available for public 

comment from March 9, 2007 to June 5, 

2007. The DEIS was available for an 88- 

day review and comment period, 43 

days longer than what is required by 

NEPA, and 28 days longer than what is 

recommended in the NIGC NEPA 

Procedures Manual. Two public 

hearings were held on the Draft EIS, 

April 4, 2007 at the Spreckles 

Performing Arts Center, Rohnert Park, 

CA and April 5, 2007 at the Wells Fargo 

Performing Arts Center, Santa Rosa, CA. 

Eight alternatives are evaluated in 

detail in the FEIS, including 

development on one of three 

alternatives sites (Wilfred, Stony Point, 

and Lakeville) and a no action 

alternative. Based on comments 

received by cooperating agencies and at 

the request of the Tribe, a full, detailed 

analysis of an eighth alternative 

(Alternative H) has been added to the 

FEIS analysis. Alternative H is a 

reduced intensity casino alternative 

with the same components as the 

reduced intensity Alternative D but 

located on the Wilfred Site. 

The Clean Air Act requires federal 

agencies to assure that their actions 

conform to applicable implementation 

plans for achieving and maintaining the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for criteria air pollutants. The NIGC 

prepared a FCD for the proposed action/ 

project described above. The FCD is 

included in Appendix W of the FEIS. 

Authority: This notice is published in 

accordance with Sections 1506.6 of the 

Council of Environmental Quality 

Regulations 40 CFR, Parts 1500 through 1508 

implementing the procedural requirements of 

the NEPA of 1969, as amended 42 U.S.C. 

4371 et seq. This notice is also published in 

accordance with 40 CFR 93.155, which 

provides reporting requirements for 

conformity determinations. 

Dated: February 13, 2009. 

Philip N. Hogen, 

Chairman. 

[FR Doc. E9–4263 Filed 2–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory 

Committee #13883; Notice of Meeting 

In accordance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463, as amended), the National Science 

Foundation announces the following 

meeting: 

Name: Astronomy and Astrophysics 

Advisory Committee (#13883). 

Date and Time: March 5, 2009, 2 p.m.–4 

p.m. EDT. 

Place: Teleconference. 

National Science Foundation, Room 1060, 

Stafford I Building, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 

Arlington, VA, 22230. 

Type of Meeting: Open. 

Contact Person: Dr. Craig B. Foltz, Acting 

Division Director, Division of Astronomical 

Sciences, Suite 1045, National Science 

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, 

VA 22230. Telephone: 703–292–4908. 

Reason for Late Notice: Due to scheduling 

complications. At the last meeting, February 

19, it was decided that another meeting via 

teleconference was required to review the 

draft annual report before the March 15 

submission. 

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and 

recommendations to the National Science 

Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA) and the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on issues 

within the field of astronomy and 

astrophysics that are of mutual interest and 

concern to the agencies. 

Agenda: To discuss the Committee’s draft 

annual report due 15 March 2009. 

Dated: February 24, 2009. 

Susanne E. Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–4188 Filed 2–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Proposal Review Panel in Earth 

Sciences; Notice of Meeting 

In accordance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463, as amended), the National Science 

Foundation announces the following 

meeting: 

Name: Earth Sciences Proposal Review 

Panel (1569). 

Date & Time: April 1–3, 2009; 8:30 a.m.– 

5 p.m. each day. 

Place: Stafford I Conference Center, 

National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 

Blvd., Room 770, Arlington, VA 22230. 

Type of Meeting: Part-Open—see Agenda, 

below. 

Contact Person: Dr. David Lambert, 

Program Director, Instrumentation & 

Facilities Program, Division of Earth 

Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4201 

Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. 

Telephone: (703) 292–8558. 

Purpose of Meeting: To carry out review of 

IRIS management and leadership as 

stipulated in cooperative agreement EAR– 

0552316. 

Agenda 

Closed: 

April 1 from 8:30 a.m.–9:30 a.m.: 

Organization meeting, introductions, review 

of charge to review panel, discussion of COI; 

and 1 p.m.–5 p.m.: panel discussion, write 

up of summary of findings and 

recommendations. 

April 2 from 8:30 a.m.–5 p.m.: Write up of 

summary of findings and recommendations; 

April 3 from 8:30 a.m.–5 p.m.: Complete 

panel summary and recommendations. 

Open: 

April 1 from 9:30 a.m.–12 a.m.: 

Presentation by IRIS management and Q&A 

between panel and IRIS. 

Reason for Closing: During the closed 

sessions, the panel will be reviewing 

information of a proprietary or confidential 

nature, including technical information, 

financial data such as salaries, and personal 

information that could harm individuals if 

they are disclosed. If discussions were open 

to the public, these matters that are exempt 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 38 / Friday, February 27, 2009 / Notices 9009 

under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) of the 

Government in the Sunshine Act would be 

improperly disclosed. 

Dated: February 24, 2009. 

Susanne Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–4187 Filed 2–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370; NRC– 

2009–0081] 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; 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 Nos. NPF– 

9 and NPF–17 issued to Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC (the licensee), for 

operation of the McGuire Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2, located in 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. 

The proposed amendments revise the 

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

licensing basis by adopting the 

alternative source term (AST) 

radiological analysis methodology as 

allowed by Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, Part 50, Section 

50.67, ‘‘Accident Source Term, for the 

Loss of Coolant Accident.’’ This 

amendment request represents full 

scope implementation of the AST as 

described in NRC Regulatory Guide 

1.183, ‘‘Alternative Radiological Source 

Terms for Evaluating Design Basis 

Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors, 

Revision 0.’’ 

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? 

No. AST is an updated methodology used 

to evaluate the dose consequences of the Loss 

of Coolant Accident (LOCA). This type of 

change is analytical, thus, does not increase 

the probability of an accident previously 

evaluated. It has been demonstrated that the 

dose consequences of the re-analyzed 

accident remain within the dose limits of 10 

CFR 50.67 and Regulatory Guide 1.183. 

This proposed change assumes an increase 

in the amount of unfiltered air in-leakage into 

the control room. The current Technical 

Information Document (TID) based McGuire 

dose consequence analysis for the LOCA 

assumed control room unfiltered in-leakage 

of 10 scfm. Tracer gas testing performed at 

McGuire revealed that unfiltered in-leakage 

into the control room exceeded this amount 

by as much as 167 scfm as discussed in 

McGuire’s response to NRC GL 2003–01 

dated February 19, 2004. Use of the AST 

methodology can accommodate a larger 

control room pressurization unfiltered inleakage rate without exceeding any 

regulatory dose limits. 

A comparison of the AST analysis results 

and the TID values (UFSAR Table 15–12) 

shows that the EAB and LPZ (off-site) doses 

decrease while the control room dose 

increases. The new AST based analysis not 

only implements changes which affect both 

off-site and control room doses, such as the 

change in source term methodology, it also 

includes changes to the LOCA model which 

only impact the control room dose, and are 

responsible for the increased result. These 

new attributes include a control room inleakage model that reflects the control room 

tracer gas testing results and a recomputed 

control room shine component of the post 

LOCA control room dose. The dose 

consequences of the revised analysis, 

however, are below the 10 CFR 50.67 

acceptance criteria for both off-site and 

control room doses and are not considered a 

significant increase. 

AST radiological methodology does not 

adversely affect accident initiators or 

precursors. Nor will it alter or prevent the 

ability of structures, systems, and 

components from performing their intended 

function to mitigate the consequences of an 

accident. 

Therefore, this LAR will not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the LAR create the possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated? 

No. AST is an updated methodology that 

was used to re-evaluate the dose 

consequences of the McGuire UFSAR 

previously analyzed accidents. This new 

analysis does not cause any change in the 

post accident operation of any plant system, 

structure, or component. 

This LAR does not involve an addition or 

modification to any plant system, structure, 

or component. This change does not affect 

the post accident operation of any plant 

system, structure, or component as directed 

in plant procedures. New or modified 

equipment or personnel failure modes that 

might initiate a new or different type 

accident are not created as a result of the 

proposed change. 

Therefore, no new or different accident is 

created by changing to the AST methodology 

prescribed in Regulatory Guide 1.183. 

3. Does this LAR involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety? 

No. Margin of safety is related to the 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers to perform their design 

functions during and following accident 

conditions. These barriers include the fuel 

cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the 

containment system. The proposed reanalysis of the LOCA dose consequences 

using AST will have no affect on the 

performance of these barriers. This LAR does 

not involve an addition or modification to 

any plant system, structure, or component. 

This change will not affect the post accident 

operation of any plant system, structure, or 

component as directed in plant procedures. 

Therefore, the proposed LAR will 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 

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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2