12390 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Advisory Committee for Mathematical 

and Physical Sciences; Notice of 

Meeting 

In accordance with Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as 

amended), the National Science 

Foundation announces the following 

meeting: 

Name: Advisory Committee for 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences (#66). 

Date/Time:April 2, 2009 8:30 a.m.–6 p.m. 

April 3, 2009 8:30 a.m.–3 p.m. 

Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 

Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, 

Room 1235. 

Type of Meeting: OPEN. 

Contact Person: Dr. Morris L. Aizenman, 

Senior Science Associate, Directorate for 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Room 

1005, National Science Foundation, 4201 

Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. 

(703) 292–8807. 

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and 

recommendations concerning NSF science 

and education activities within the 

Directorate for Mathematical and Physical 

Sciences. 

Agenda: Update on current status of 

Directorate. Report of Division of Physics 

Committee of Visitors. Meeting of MPSAC 

with Divisions within MPS Directorate. 

Discussion of MPS Future Activities. 

Summary Minutes: May be obtained from 

the contact person listed above. 

Dated: March 18, 2009. 

Susanne E. Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–6316 Filed 3–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0131] 

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 

staff) 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 February 26, 

2009, through March 11, 2009. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

March 10, 2009 (74 FR 10305). 

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 

10 CFR 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, 

Directives and Editing Branch, 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. Copies of written comments 

received may be examined at the 

Commission’s Public Document Room 

(PDR), located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area O1F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license. 

Requests for a hearing and a petition for 

leave to intervene shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Rules of Practice for Domestic 

Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR Part 

2. Interested person(s) should consult a 

current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 

available at the Commission’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Public 

File Area 01F21, 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 within 60 

days, 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices 12391 

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 set forth 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, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in 

accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, 

which the NRC promulgated in August 

28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing 

process requires participants to submit 

and serve all adjudicatory documents 

over the Internet or in some cases to 

mail copies on electronic storage media. 

Participants may not submit paper 

copies of their filings unless they seek 

a waiver in accordance with the 

procedures described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least five (5) 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

petitioner/requestor must contact the 

Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 

hearingdocket@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 

Viewer TM to access the Electronic 

Information Exchange (EIE), a 

component of the E-Filing system. The 

Workplace Forms Viewer TM 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 may 

seek assistance through the ‘‘Contact 

Us’’ link located on the NRC Web site 

at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 

help electronic filing Help Desk can be 

contacted by telephone at 1–866–672– 

7640 or by e-mail at 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file a 

motion, 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 firstclass 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 petition and/or request should 

be granted and/or the contentions 

should be admitted, based on a 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

12392 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices 

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 

submission. 

For further details with respect to this 

amendment action, 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 01F21, 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. 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. 

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West 

Feliciana Parish, Louisiana 

Date of Amendment Request: January 

21, 2009, as supplemented on January 

23, 2009. 

Description of Amendment Request: 

The proposed changes to the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) adopt NRCapproved TS Task Force (TSTF) traveler 

TSTF 163, ‘‘Minimum vs. Steady-State 

Voltage and Frequency,’’ TSTF–222, 

‘‘Control Rod Scram Time Testing,’’ 

TSTF–230, ‘‘Residual Heat Removal 

Suppression Pool Cooling Limiting 

Condition for Operation [LCO],’’ and 

TSTF–306, ‘‘LCO Action Note to Allow 

Unisolation of Penetration Flow 

Path(s),’’ and make two minor 

administrative corrections. 

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 for TSTF–230, which is 

presented below: 

1. Does the Proposed Change Involve a 

Significant Increase in the Probability or 

Consequences of an Accident Previously 

Evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change relaxes the Required 

Actions of LCO [limiting condition for 

operation] 3.6.2.3 by allowing 8 hours to 

restore one RHR [residual heat removal] 

suppression pool cooling subsystem to 

OPERABLE status when both subsystems 

have been determined to be inoperable. 

Required Actions and their associated 

Completion Times are not initiating 

conditions for any accident previously 

evaluated. The proposed 8 hour Completion 

Time provides some time to restore required 

subsystem(s) to OPERABLE status, yet is 

short enough that operating an additional 8 

hours is not a significant risk. The Required 

Actions in the proposed change have been 

developed to provide assurance that 

appropriate remedial actions are taken in 

response to the degraded condition, 

considering the operability status of the RHR 

Suppression Pool Cooling System and the 

capability of minimizing the risk associated 

with continued operation. As a result, neither 

the probability nor the consequences of any 

accident previously evaluated are 

significantly increased. Therefore, this 

change does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the Proposed Change Create the 

Possibility of a New or Different Kind of 

Accident from Any Accident Previously 

Evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

physical modification or alteration of plant 

equipment (no new or different type of 

equipment will be installed) or a change in 

the methods governing normal plant 

operation. The Required Actions and 

associated Completion Times in the proposed 

change have been evaluated to ensure that no 

new accident initiators are introduced. Thus, 

this change does not create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

3. Does the Proposed Change Involve a 

Significant Reduction in a Margin of Safety? 

Response: No. 

The relaxed Required Actions do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. The proposed change has been 

evaluated to minimize the risk of continued 

operation with both RHR suppression pool 

cooling subsystems inoperable. The 

operability status of the RHR Suppression 

Pool Cooling System, a reasonable time for 

repair or replacement of required features, 

and the low probability of a design basis 

accident occurring during the repair period 

have been considered in the evaluation. 

Therefore, this change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The licensee has also provided its 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration for TSTFs-163, 

222, and 306, and the proposed two 

minor administrative corrections, 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 minor administrative changes which, 

(1) corrects Action Statement 3.7.2.F, and (2) 

changes a reference number from ‘‘ANSI 

N510–1989’’ to ‘‘ASME N510–1989,’’ has no 

impact on any structure, system, component, 

program, or analysis. 

The adoption of TSTF–163 does not 

change the manner in which the EDGs 

[emergency diesel generators] are operated 

and, when implemented, will continue to 

ensure the EDGs perform their function when 

called upon. The proposed revision to the TS 

SRs [surveillance requirements] will 

continue to ensure that minimum frequency 

and voltage are attained within the required 

time. The SRs will continue to ensure that 

proper steady state voltage and frequency are 

attained consistent with proper EDG 

governor and voltage regulator performance. 

Therefore, the probability or consequences of 

previously evaluated accidents are not 

significantly increased. 

The proposed change to adopt TSTF–222 

is an administrative clarification of existing 

Technical Specification requirements 

regarding scram time testing requirements for 

control rods. It consists of administrative 

changes that involve wording changes that 

clarify requirements without changing the 

original intent. As such, these types of 

changes do not affect initiators of analyzed 

events and do not affect the mitigation of any 

accidents or transients. 

The proposed change to adopt TSTF–306 

allows primary containment and drywell 

isolation valves to be unisolated under 

administrative controls when the associated 

isolation instrumentation is not operable. 

The isolation function is an accident 

mitigating function and is not an initiator of 

an accident previously evaluated. 

Administrative controls are required to be in 

effect when the valves are unisolated so that 

the penetration can be rapidly isolated when 

the need is indicated. Therefore, the 

probability or consequences of previously 

evaluated accidents are not significantly 

increased. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the Proposed Change Create the 

Possibility of a New or Different Kind of 

Accident from Any Accident Previously 

Evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The minor administrative changes which, 

(1) corrects Action Statement 3.7.2.F, and (2) 

changes a reference number from ‘‘ANSI 

N510–1989’’ to ‘‘ASME N510–1989,’’ has no 

impact on any structure, system, component, 

program, or analysis. 

The proposed changes do not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant (no new or 

different type of equipment will be installed), 

do not change the design function of any 

equipment, and do not change the methods 

of normal plant operation. Accordingly, the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices 12393 

proposed changes do not create any new 

credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, 

or accident initiators not previously 

considered in the RBS [River Bend Station] 

design and licensing basis. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the Proposed Change Involve a 

Significant Reduction in a Margin of Safety? 

Response: No. 

The minor administrative changes which, 

(1) corrects Action Statement 3.7.2.F, and (2) 

changes a reference number from ‘‘ANSI 

N510–1989’’ to ‘‘ASME N510–1989,’’ has no 

impact on any structure, system, component, 

program, or analysis. 

Adoption of TSTF–163 does not impact 

EDG performance, including the capability 

for each EDG to attain and maintain required 

voltage and frequency for accepting and 

supporting plant safety loads within the 

required time, as assumed in the plant safety 

analysis. The proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety since the operability of the EDGs 

continues to be determined as required to 

support the capability of the EDGs to provide 

emergency power to plant equipment that 

mitigate the consequences of an accident. 

The proposed change associated with 

TSTF–222 involves an administrative 

clarification to better delineate the 

requirements for scram time testing control 

rods following refueling outages and for 

control rods requiring testing due to work 

activities. As such, the proposed change does 

not involve a significant reduction in the 

margin of safety. 

The change to allow containment and 

drywell isolation valves to be unisolated 

under administrative control (TSTF–306) 

does not reduce any margins to safety 

because the proposed allowance for the 

supporting isolation instrumentation is no 

less restrictive than the allowance for the 

equipment it supports. When the valves are 

unisolated, the design basis function of 

containment isolation is maintained by 

administrative controls. The proposed 

changes have no affect on any safety analysis 

assumptions or methods of performing safety 

analyses. The changes do not adversely affect 

system operability or design requirements 

and the equipment continues to be tested in 

a manner and at a frequency necessary to 

provide confidence that the equipment can 

perform its intended safety functions. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for Licensee: Terence A. 

Burke, Associate General Counsel— 

Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 

Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 

39213. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Florida Power and Light Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. 

Lucie Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

St. Lucie County, Florida 

Date of Amendment Request: 

February 12, 2009. 

Description of Amendment Request: 

The proposed amendment would delete 

those portions of Technical 

Specifications (TS) superseded by Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR), Part 26, Subpart I. This change 

is consistent with Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission approved Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Improved Standard Technical 

Specification Change Traveler TSTF– 

511, ‘‘Revision 0, ‘‘Eliminate Working 

Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to 

Support Compliance with 10 CFR Part 

26.’’ 

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 is presented below: 

Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. 

Removal of the Technical Specification 

requirements will be performed concurrently 

with the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 

26, Subpart I, requirements. The proposed 

change does not impact the physical 

configuration or function of plant structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner 

in which SSCs are operated, maintained, 

modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue 

is not an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an 

assumption in the consequence mitigation of 

any accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Create the Possibility of a New or Different 

Kind of Accident From Any Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. 

Working hours will continue to be controlled 

in accordance with NRC requirements. The 

new rule allows for deviations from controls 

to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to 

safety or as necessary to maintain the 

security of the facility. This ensures that the 

new rule will not unnecessarily restrict 

working hours and thereby create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

plant configuration, require new plant 

equipment to be installed, alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

effect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin 

of Safety 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. The 

proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to plant or alter the manner 

in which plant systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed change does 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 this 

change. The proposed change will not result 

in plant operation in a configuration outside 

the design basis. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 

Removal of plant-specific Technical 

Specification administrative requirements 

will not reduce a margin of safety because the 

requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 are adequate 

to ensure that worker fatigue is managed. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for Licensee: M.S. Ross, 

Attorney, Florida Power & Light, P.O. 

Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408– 

0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce. 

FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–331, Duane Arnold Energy 

Center, Linn County, Iowa 

Date of Amendment Request: January 

30, 2009. 

Description of Amendment Request: 

The proposed amendment would delete 

the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

12394 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices 

Technical Specification (TS) Section 

5.2.2.e regarding work hour controls. 

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: 

Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. 

Removal of the Technical Specification 

requirements will be performed concurrently 

with the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 

26, Subpart I, requirements. The proposed 

change does not impact the physical 

configuration or function of plant structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner 

in which SSCs are operated, maintained, 

modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue 

is not an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an 

assumption in the consequence mitigation of 

any accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Create the Possibility of a New or Different 

Kind of Accident From Any Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. 

Working hours will continue to be controlled 

in accordance with NRC requirements. The 

new rule allows for deviations from controls 

to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to 

safety or as necessary to maintain the 

security of the facility. This ensures that the 

new rule will not unnecessarily restrict 

working hours and thereby create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

plant configuration, require new plant 

equipment to be installed, alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

[a]ffect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin 

of Safety 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. The 

proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to the plant or alter the 

manner in which plant systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed change does 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 this 

change. The proposed change will not result 

in plant operation in a configuration outside 

the design basis. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 

Removal of plant-specific Technical 

Specification administrative requirements 

will not reduce a margin of safety because the 

requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 are adequate 

to ensure that worker fatigue is managed. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis, and based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for Licensee: Mr. R. E. 

Helfrich, Florida Power & Light 

Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, 

FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

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

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 

California 

Date of Amendment Request: 

February 24, 2009. 

Description of Amendment Request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP), 

Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification 

(TS) 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip System (RTS) 

Instrumentation.’’ The amendment will 

delete the requirement for the power 

range neutron flux rate-high negative 

rate trip function as specified in TS 

Table 3.3.1–1, ‘‘Reactor Trip System 

Instrumentation,’’ as Function 3.b, 

‘‘Power Range Neutron Flux Rate-High 

Negative Rate.’’ 

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 removal of the power range neutron 

flux rate-high negative rate trip function from 

the DCPP TS does not increase the 

probability or consequences of accidents 

resulting from dropped RCCA [rod cluster 

control assembly] events previously 

analyzed. The safety functions of other 

safety-related systems and components, 

which are related to mitigation of these 

events, have not been altered. All other 

reactor trip system protection functions are 

not impacted by the deletion of the trip 

function. The dropped RCCA accident 

analysis does not rely on the negative flux 

rate trip to safely shut down the plant. The 

safety analysis of the plant is unaffected by 

the proposed change. Since the safety 

analysis is unaffected, the calculated 

radiological releases associated with the 

analysis are not affected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the Proposed Change Create the 

Possibility of a New or Different Accident 

from Any Accident Previously Evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not adversely 

alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 

configuration of the facility or the manner in 

which the plant is operated. No new accident 

scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 

single failures are introduced as a result of 

the proposed change. The proposed change 

does not challenge the performance or 

integrity of any safety-related systems or 

components. NRC-approved Westinghouse 

Topical Report WCAP–11394–P–A, 

‘‘Methodology for the Analysis of the 

Dropped Rod Event,’’ dated January 1990, 

has demonstrated that the negative flux rate 

trip function can be deleted. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the Proposed Change Involve a 

Significant Reduction in a Margin of Safety? 

Response: No. 

The margin of safety associated with the 

acceptance criteria of any accident is 

unchanged. It has been demonstrated that the 

negative flux rate trip function can be deleted 

by the NRC-approved methodology described 

in WCAP–11394–P–A. DCPP cycle-specific 

analyses have confirmed that for dropped 

RCCA events, limits on DNB [departure from 

nucleate boiling] are not exceeded by 

deleting the negative flux rate trip. The 

proposed change will have no effect on the 

availability, operability, or performance of 

safety-related systems and components. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices 12395 

Attorney for Licensee: Jennifer Post, 

Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 

94120. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 

South Carolina Public Service 

Authority, Docket No. 50–395, Virgil C. 

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, 

Fairfield County, South Carolina 

Date of Amendment Request: 

February 17, 2009. 

Description of Amendment Request: 

The licensee proposes to amend the 

operating license for Virgil C. Summer 

Nuclear Station, by revising the 

technical specifications (TS) and 

incorporating an alternative source term 

(AST) methodology into the facility’s 

licensing basis. The proposed license 

amendment involves a full 

implementation of an AST methodology 

by revising the current accident source 

term and replacing it with an AST, as 

prescribed in 10 CFR 50.67. 

AST analyses were performed using 

the guidance provided by Regulatory 

Guide (RG) 1.183, ‘‘Alternative Source 

Terms for Evaluating Design Basis 

Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ 

dated July 2000, and Standard Review 

Plan (SRP) Section 15.0.1, ‘‘Radiological 

Consequences Analyses Using 

Alternative Source Terms.’’ TS changes 

are also proposed to implement 

Technical Specifications Task Force 

Traveler 51, Revision 2, which permits 

removal of the TS requirements for 

engineered safety features to be operable 

after sufficient radioactive decay has 

occurred to ensure off-site doses remain 

below the SRP limits. Other TS 

revisions reflect the update of the 

accident source term and associated 

design basis accidents utilizing the 

guidance provided in RG 1.183 and the 

associated control room and offsite dose 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.67. The AST 

analyses are based on new control room 

habitability atmospheric dispersion 

coefficients based on site specific 

meteorological data in accordance with 

RG 1.194. 

Basis for Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination: 

As required by10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1.0 Does the Proposed Change Involve a 

Significant Increase in the Probability of 

Occurrence or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Adoptions of the AST and pursuant TS 

changes and the changes to the atmospheric 

dispersion factors have no impact to the 

initiation of DBAs. Once the occurrence of an 

accident has been postulated, the new 

accident source term and atmospheric 

dispersion factors are an input to analyses 

that evaluate the radiological consequences. 

Some of the proposed changes do affect the 

design or manner in which the facility is 

operated following an accident; however, the 

proposed changes do not involve a revision 

to the design or manner in which the facility 

is operated that could increase the 

probability of an accident previously 

evaluated in Chapter 15 of the FSAR. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve an increase in the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

The structures, systems and components 

affected by the proposed changes act as 

mitigators to the consequences of accidents. 

Based on the AST analyses, the proposed 

changes do revise certain performance 

requirements; however, the proposed 

changes do not involve a revision to the 

parameters or conditions that could 

contribute to the initiation of an accident 

previously discussed in Chapter 15 of the 

FSAR. 

Plant-specific radiological analyses have 

been performed using the AST methodology 

and new atmospheric dispersion factors. 

Based on the results of these analyses, it has 

been demonstrated that the CRHE dose 

consequences of the limiting events 

considered in the analyses meet the 

regulatory guidance provided for use with 

the AST, and the offsite doses are within 

acceptable limits. This guidance is presented 

in 10 CFR 50.67, RG 1.183, and Standard 

Review Plan Section (SRP) 15.0.1. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not result in a significant increase in the 

consequences of any previously evaluated 

accident. 

2.0 Does the Proposed Change Create the 

Possibility of a New or Different Kind of 

Accident From Any Accident Previously 

Evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Implementation of AST and the associated 

proposed TS changes and new atmospheric 

dispersion factors do not alter or involve any 

design basis accident initiators. With the 

exception of the fuel handling accident, these 

changes do not affect the design function or 

mode of operations of structures, systems and 

components in the facility prior to a 

postulated accident. Since structures, 

systems and components are operated 

essentially no differently after the AST 

implementation, no new failure modes are 

created by this proposed change. The 

alternative source term change itself does not 

have the capability to initiate accidents. 

For the fuel handling accident, the 

Improved Standard Technical Specifications 

Change Traveler (TSTF–51, Revision 2) 

permits removal of the Technical 

Specification requirements for ESF features 

to be operable after sufficient radioactive 

decay has occurred to ensure off-site doses 

remain below the SRP limits. As noted in this 

submittal no credit is taken for the accident 

mitigation of the ESF features associated with 

the fuel handling accidents to meet these 

limits. Since these are not associated with 

accident initiators the proposed license 

amendment will not create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

3.0 Does the Proposed Change Involve a 

Significant Reduction in a Margin of Safety? 

Response: No. 

The results of the AST analyses are subject 

to the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.67. 

The analyzed events have been carefully 

selected, and the analyses supporting these 

changes have been performed using approved 

methodologies to ensure that analyzed events 

are bounding and safety margin has not been 

reduced. The dose consequences of these 

limiting events are within the acceptance 

criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67, RG 1.183, 

and SRP 15.0.1. Thus, by meeting the 

applicable regulatory limits for AST, there is 

no significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

New Control Room atmospheric dispersion 

factors (X/Qs) based on site specific 

meteorological data, calculated in accordance 

with the guidance of RG 1.194, utilizes more 

recent data and improved calculational 

methodologies. 

For the fuel handling accident, the 

Improved Standard Technical Specifications 

Change Traveler (TSTF–51, Revision 2) 

permits removal of the Technical 

Specification requirements for ESF features 

to be operable after sufficient radioactive 

decay has occurred to ensure off-site doses 

remain below the SRP limits. Following 

sufficient decay, the primary success paths 

for mitigating the fuel handling accident no 

longer includes the functioning of the active 

containment or fuel handling building 

systems. With the proposed changes, the 

OPERABILITY requirements of the Technical 

Specifications will reflect that water level 

(23′) and decay time (72 hours after 

shutdown) are the primary success path for 

mitigating a fuel handling accident. 

Therefore, because the proposed changes 

continue to result in dose consequences 

within the applicable regulatory limits, the 

changes are considered to not result in a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for Licensee: J. Hagood 

Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina Electric & 

Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, 

Columbia, South Carolina 29218. 

NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong. 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 

South Carolina Public Service 

Authority, Docket No. 50–395, Virgil C. 

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, 

Fairfield County, South Carolina 

Date of Amendment Request: March 

2, 2009. 

Description of Amendment Request: 

The proposed amendment would delete 

those portions of technical 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

12396 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices 

specifications (TS) 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.’’ The availability 

of this TS improvement was announced 

in the Federal Register on December 30, 

2008, (73 FR 79923) as part of the 

consolidated line item improvement 

process. 

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: 

Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. 

Removal of the Technical Specification 

requirements will be performed concurrently 

with the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 

26, Subpart I, requirements. The proposed 

change does not impact the physical 

configuration or function of plant structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner 

in which SSCs are operated, maintained, 

modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue 

is not an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an 

assumption in the consequence mitigation of 

any accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Create the Possibility of a New or Different 

Kind of Accident From Any Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. 

Working hours will continue to be controlled 

in accordance with NRC requirements. The 

new rule allows for deviations from controls 

to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to 

safety or as necessary to maintain the 

security of the facility. This ensures that the 

new rule will not unnecessarily restrict 

working hours and thereby create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

plant configuration, require new plant 

equipment to be installed, alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

affect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin 

of Safety 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. The 

proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to the plant or alter the 

manner in which plant systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed change does 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 this 

change. The proposed change will not result 

in plant operation in a configuration outside 

the design basis. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shut down the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 

Removal of plant-specific Technical 

Specification administrative requirements 

will not reduce a margin of safety because the 

requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 are adequate 

to ensure that worker fatigue is managed. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for Licensee: J. Hagood 

Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina Electric & 

Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, 

Columbia, South Carolina 29218. 

NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North 

Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Louisa County, Virginia 

Date of Amendment Request: 

February 6, 2009. 

Description of Amendment Request: 

The proposed amendments would 

delete applicable portions of the 

technical specifications (TSs) 

superseded by Part 26, Subpart I of Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR). This change is consistent with 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)- 

approved Revision 0 to Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Improved Standard Technical 

Specification Change Traveler, TSTF– 

511, ‘‘Eliminate Working Hour 

Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support 

Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.’’ The 

availability of this TS improvement was 

announced in the Federal Register on 

December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79923) as 

part of the consolidated line item 

improvement process. The licensee 

affirmed the applicability of the model 

no significant hazards consideration 

determination in its application. 

Basis for Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration adopted by the 

licensee is presented below: 

Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes TS 

restrictions on working hours for personnel 

who perform safety related functions. The TS 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. 

Removal of the TS requirements will be 

performed concurrently with the 

implementation of the 10 CFR Part 26, 

Subpart I, requirements. The proposed 

change does not impact the physical 

configuration or function of plant structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner 

in which SSCs are operated, maintained, 

modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue 

is not an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an 

assumption in the consequence mitigation of 

any accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Create the Possibility of a New or Different 

Kind of Accident From Any Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes TS 

restrictions on working hours for personnel 

who perform safety related functions. The TS 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. 

Working hours will continue to be controlled 

in accordance with NRC requirements. The 

new rule allows for deviations from controls 

to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to 

safety or as necessary to maintain the 

security of the facility. This ensures that the 

new rule will not unnecessarily restrict 

working hours and thereby create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

plant configuration, require new plant 

equipment to be installed, alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

affect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices 12397 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin 

of Safety 

The proposed change removes TS 

restrictions on working hours for personnel 

who perform safety related functions. The TS 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. The 

proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to plant or alter the manner 

in which plant systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed change does 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 this 

change. The proposed change will not result 

in plant operation in a configuration outside 

the design basis. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 

Removal of plant-specific TS 

administrative requirements will not reduce 

a margin of safety because the requirements 

in 10 CFR Part 26 are adequate to ensure that 

worker fatigue is managed. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s incorporation of the above 

analysis by reference and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. The NRC staff proposes to 

determine that the amendment request 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. 

Attorney for Licensee: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong. 

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. 

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., 

Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert 

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2, Calvert County, Maryland 

Date of Application for Amendments: 

August 27, 2008, as supplemented by 

letters dated December 11, 2008, and 

March 2, 2009. 

Brief Description of Amendments: The 

amendments revise Technical 

Specification 3.5.5, ‘‘Trisodium 

Phosphate (TSP),’’ by changing the 

containment buffering agent from 

trisodium phosphate to sodium 

tetraborate. The change will minimize 

the potential for sump screen blockage 

under loss-of-coolant accident 

conditions due to potential chemical 

interactions between trisodium 

phosphate and insulation materials 

inside containment. 

Date of Issuance: March 4, 2009. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance. Implementation at Unit No. 1 

shall be no later than startup from the 

spring 2010 refueling outage whereas 

implementation at Unit No. 2 shall be 

prior to entry into Mode 4 following the 

spring 2009 refueling outage. 

Amendment Nos.: 290 and 266. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–53 and DPR–69: Amendments 

revised the License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of Initial Notice in Federal 

Register: October 21, 2008 (73 FR 

62562). The supplemental letters dated 

December 11, 2008, and March 2, 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 these amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 4, 2009. 

No Significant Hazards Consideration 

Comments Received: No. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., 

Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, 

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

Date of Application for Amendments: 

December 11, 2007, as supplemented 

December 18, 2008. 

Brief Description of Amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications sections to allow the 

bypass test times and Completion Times 

(CTs) for Limiting Condition for 

Operation (LCOs) 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip 

System (RTS) Instrumentation’’ and 

3.3.2, ‘‘Engineered Safety Feature 

Actuation System (ESFAS) 

Instrumentation.’’ 

By letter dated December 30, 2008 

(Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System Accession No. 

ML083520046), the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission issued Amendment No. 

248 and Amendment No. 228 for 

McGuire Units 1 and 2, respectively, for 

all the proposed changes approved by 

the NRC in TSTFs 411 and 418. The 

December 30, 2008 amendment stated 

that the following changes would be 

evaluated in a future amendment: 

LCO 3.3.1, ‘‘RTS Instrumentation,’’ 

Condition N, One Reactor Coolant Flow— 

Low (Single Loop) channel inoperable, LCO 

3.3.2, ‘‘ESFAS Instrumentation,’’ Condition 

D, Auxiliary Feedwater Start with Station 

Blackout.’’ 

This amendment approves the above 

changes. 

Date of Issuance: March 9, 2009. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 250 and 230. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

9 and NPF–17: Amendments revised the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

12398 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices 

licenses and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of Initial Notice in Federal 

Register: March 25, 2008 (73 FR 

15783). The supplement dated 

December 18, 2008, 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. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 9, 2009. 

No Significant Hazards Consideration 

Comments Received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC 

and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of Application for Amendment: 

September 4, 2008, as supplemented by 

letter dated January 28, 2009. 

Brief Description of Amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specification (TS) Section 5.1, ‘‘Site,’’ to 

remove the restriction on the sale and 

lease of site property and replace the 

restriction with a requirement to retain 

complete authority to determine and 

maintain sufficient control of all 

activities, including the authority to 

exclude or remove personnel and 

property, within the minimum 

exclusion area. 

Date of Issuance: February 26, 2009. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 235. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

28: Amendment revised the License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of Initial Notice in Federal 

Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR 

65692). The supplemental letter dated 

January 28, 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. The 

Commission’s related evaluation of this 

amendment is contained in a Safety 

Evaluation dated February 26, 2009. 

No Significant Hazards Consideration 

Comments Received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of Application for Amendment: 

July 21, 2008, as supplemented by letter 

dated December 11, 2008. 

Brief Description of Amendment: The 

amendment relocated Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.7.8, ‘‘Shock 

Suppressors (Snubbers),’’ to the 

Technical Requirements Manual. In 

addition, the amendment revised TS 

requirements for inoperable snubbers by 

adding Limiting Condition for 

Operation (LCO) 3.0.8 on the 

inoperability of snubbers. The 

amendment also makes conforming 

changes to TS LCO 3.0.1. This 

amendment is consistent with U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commissionapproved Industry/Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Standard Technical Specification 

change TSTF–372, Revision 4, 

‘‘Addition of LCO 3.0.8, Inoperability of 

Snubbers.’’ 

Date of Issuance: March 6, 2009. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 283. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–6: Amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications/license. 

Date of Initial Notice in Federal 

Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR 

65693). The supplemental letter dated 

December 11, 2008, 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 March 6, 2009. 

No Significant Hazards Consideration 

Comments Received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy 

Resources, Inc., South Mississippi 

Electric Power Association, and Entergy 

Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416, 

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 

Claiborne County, Mississippi 

Date of Application for Amendment: 

September 11, 2008. 

Brief Description of Amendment: The 

amendment revised several surveillance 

requirements (SRs) and added SR 

3.8.1.21 in Technical Specification (TS) 

3.8.1, ‘‘AC [alternating current] 

Sources—Operating,’’ and TS 3.8.2, ‘‘AC 

Sources—Shutdown.’’ The changes 

allow the slow-start testing sequence of 

the diesel generators in order to reduce 

the stress and wear on the equipment. 

Date of Issuance: March 4, 2009. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 45 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 182. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

29: The amendment revises the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of Initial Notice in Federal 

Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR 

58673). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 4, 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: 

May 2, 2008, as supplemented by letter 

dated July 23, 2008. 

Brief Description of Amendments: The 

amendments modify technical 

specification (TS) 3.8.3, ‘‘Diesel Fuel Oil 

and Starting Air,’’ to replace the 

numerical volume requirements for 

stored diesel fuel oil inventory with 

requirements that state that volumes 

equivalent to 7 days and 6 days of fuel 

oil are available, and to move the diesel 

fuel oil numerical volumes equivalent to 

7 day and 6 day supplies to the TS 

Bases. 

Date of Issuance: March 9, 2009. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 191 and 178. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

11 and NPF–18: The amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications and 

License. 

Date of Initial Notice in Federal 

Register: August 12, 2008 (73 FR 

46930). The July 23, 2008 supplement, 

contained clarifying information and 

did not change the NRC staff’s initial 

proposed finding of no significant 

hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 9, 2009. 

No Significant Hazards Consideration 

Comments Received: No. 

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50– 

388, Susquehanna Steam Electric 

Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of Application for Amendment: 

October 30, 2008, as supplemented by 

letters dated November 12, 2008 and 

January 23, 2009. 

Brief Description of Amendment: This 

amendment request would revise PPL 

Susquehanna, LLC, Unit 2 Technical 

Specifications Section 2.1.1.2, 

Minimum Critical Power Ratio Safety 

Limits for two-loop and single-loop 

operation and adds an associated 

License Condition in the Facility 

Operating License. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices 12399 

Date of Issuance: February 26, 2009. 

Effective Date: February 26, 2009. 

Amendment No.: 230. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

22: This amendment revised the License 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of Initial Notice in Federal 

Register: January 23, 2009 (74 FR 

4254). The supplements dated 

November 21, 2008, and January 23, 

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 on January 23, 2009 

(74 FR 4254). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 26, 

2009. 

No Significant Hazards Consideration 

Comments Received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, 

Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of Application for Amendment: 

April 25, 2008, as supplemented by 

letter dated January 7, 2009. 

Brief Description of Amendment: The 

amendment revises the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) to remove the 

restriction on operation of the hydrogen 

water chemistry system at low power 

levels. 

Date of Issuance: March 4, 2009. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 30 

days. 

Amendment No.: 176. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

57: The amendment revised the TSs and 

the License. 

Date of Initial Notice in Federal 

Register: July 29, 2008 (73 FR 43957). 

The letter dated January 7, 2009, 

provided clarifying information that did 

not change the initial proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination or expand the application 

beyond the scope of the original Federal 

Register notice. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 4, 2009. 

No Significant Hazards Consideration 

Comments Received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 

Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of Application for Amendment: 

September 18, 2008, as supplemented 

February 11, 2009. 

Brief Description of Amendment: The 

amendment revised requirements for the 

auxiliary feedwater system auto-start 

function associated with the trip of 

main feedwater pumps. 

Date of Issuance: March 4, 2009. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 270 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 75. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

90: Amendment revises the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of Initial Notice in Federal 

Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR 

65698). The supplement dated February 

11, 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 Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 4, 2009. 

No Significant Hazards Consideration 

Comments Received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day 

of March 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–6112 Filed 3–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–331; NRC–2008–0618] 

FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC; Duane 

Arnold Energy Center; Notice of Intent 

To Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement and Conduct Scoping 

Process 

FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC has 

submitted an application for renewal of 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–49 

for an additional 20 years of operation 

at Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC). 

DAEC is located near Cedar Rapids, IA. 

The operating license for DAEC expires 

on February 21, 2014. The application 

for renewal, dated September 30, 2008, 

was submitted pursuant to Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) Part 54. A notice of receipt and 

availability of the application, which 

included the environmental report (ER), 

was published in the Federal Register 

on November 17, 2008 (73 FR 67895). A 

notice of acceptance for docketing of the 

application for renewal of the facility 

operating license was also published in 

the Federal Register on February 17, 

2009 (74 FR 7489). The purpose of this 

notice is to inform the public that the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) will be preparing an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

related to the license renewal 

application and to provide the public 

with an opportunity to participate in the 

environmental scoping process, as 

defined in 10 CFR 51.29. In addition, as 

outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, ‘‘Coordination 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act,’’ the NRC plans to coordinate 

compliance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act in 

meeting the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA). 

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c) 

and 10 CFR 54.23, FPL Energy Duane 

Arnold, LLC submitted the ER as part of 

the application. The ER was prepared 

pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51 and is 

publicly available at the NRC Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, or 

from the NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS). The ADAMS Public 

Electronic Reading Room is accessible at 

http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/ 

dologin.htm. The Accession Number for 

the ER is ML082980483. Persons who 

do not have access to ADAMS, or who 

encounter problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, should 

contact the NRC’s PDR reference staff by 

telephone at 1–800–397–4209, or 301– 

415–4737, or by e-mail at 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ER may also 

be viewed on the Internet at: http://

www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/

licensing/renewal/applications/duanearnold-energy-center.html. In addition, 

the ER is available for public inspection 

near DAEC at the following public 

library: Hiawatha Public Library, 150 

West Willman Street, Hiawatha, Iowa. 

This notice advises the public that the 

NRC intends to gather the information 

necessary to prepare a plant-specific 

supplement to the Commission’s 

‘‘Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants’’ (NUREG–1437), related 

to the review of the application for 

renewal of the DAEC operating license 

for an additional 20 years. Possible 

alternatives to the proposed action 

(license renewal) include no action and 

reasonable alternative energy sources. 

The NRC is required by 10 CFR 51.95 

to prepare a supplement to the GEIS in 

connection with the renewal of an 

operating license. This notice is being 

published in accordance with NEPA 

and the NRC’s regulations found in 10 

CFR Part 51. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES