[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26428-26440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12511]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0220]


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 May 7, 2009 to May 20, 2009. The last 
biweekly notice was published on May 19, 2009 (73 FR 370501).

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 
and Directives 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. The filing of 
requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is 
discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing 
and a petition for leave to intervene. 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

[[Page 26429]]

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 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.
    A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene 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 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#137b7672617a7d74777c70787667537d61703d747c65"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80e8e5e1f2e9eee7e4efe3ebe5f4c0eef2e3aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 NRC-issued 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/site-help/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/apply-certificates.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/e-submittals.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/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC Meta-System Help 
Desk, which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday. The Meta-System Help Desk can be contacted by 
telephone at 1-866-672-7640 or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a1ecf2e9e58ff3c4d2ced4d3c2c4e1cfd3c28fc6ced7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c011f0408621e293f23393e2f290c223e2f622b233a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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,

[[Page 26430]]

Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to 
the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner 
are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. 
Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of 
deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery 
service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition 
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be 
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later 
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
    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. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8bfbeff9a5f9eef8e4fef9e8eecbe5f9e8a5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd8d998fd38f988e92888f9e98bd938f9ed39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 amendments request: April 23, 2009.
    Description of amendments request: The amendment would delete those 
portions of the Technical Specifications (TSs) 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 
Revision 0 to Technical Specification Task Force 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.
    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 or the manner in which structures, systems, or components 
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 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 
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Carey Fleming, Sr. Counsel--Nuclear 
Generation, Constellation Generation Group, LLC, 750 East Pratt Street, 
17th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21202.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: John Boska.

[[Page 26431]]

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon 
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: February 26, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
delete the Technical Specifications (TS) requirements related to 
hydrogen recombiners and hydrogen monitors. The proposed TS changes 
support implementation of the revisions to 10 CFR 50.44, ``Standards 
for Combustible Gas Control System in Light-Water-Cooled Power 
Reactors,'' which became effective on October 16, 2003. These changes 
are consistent with Revision 1 of the NRC-approved Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications 
Change Traveler, TSTF-447, ``Elimination of Hydrogen Recombiners and 
Change to Hydrogen and Oxygen Monitors.''
    The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for public comments on 
TSTF-447, Revision 1 in the Federal Register on August 2, 2002 (67 FR 
50374), soliciting comments on a model safety evaluation and a model no 
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for the 
elimination of requirements for hydrogen recombiners, and hydrogen and 
oxygen monitors from the TS. Based on its evaluation of the public 
comments received, the NRC staff made appropriate changes to the models 
and included final versions in a notice of availability published in 
the Federal Register on September 25, 2003 (68 FR 55416), regarding the 
adoption of TSTF-447, Revision 1, as part of the NRC's consolidated 
line item improvement process. The licensee affirmed the applicability 
of the model NSHC determination in its application dated February 26, 
2009.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of NSHC 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 revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines a design-basis loss-
of-coolant accident (LOCA) hydrogen release, and eliminates 
requirements for hydrogen control systems to mitigate such a 
release. The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and 
purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address 
the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was 
postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that 
this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-
basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional 
probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after 
the onset of core damage. In addition, these systems were 
ineffective at mitigating hydrogen releases from risk-significant 
accident sequences that could threaten containment integrity.
    With the elimination of the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release, 
hydrogen monitors are no longer required to mitigate design-basis 
accidents and, therefore, the hydrogen monitors do not meet the 
definition of a safety-related component as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. 
RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.97 Category 1 is intended for key variables 
that most directly indicate the accomplishment of a safety function 
for design-basis accident events. The hydrogen monitors no longer 
meet the definition of Category 1 in RG 1.97. As part of the 
rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44 the Commission found that Category 
3, as defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate categorization for the 
hydrogen monitors because the monitors are required to diagnose the 
course of beyond design-basis accidents.
    The regulatory requirements for the hydrogen monitors can be 
relaxed without degrading the plant emergency response. The 
emergency response, in this sense, refers to the methodologies used 
in ascertaining the condition of the reactor core, mitigating the 
consequences of an accident, assessing and projecting offsite 
releases of radioactivity, and establishing protective action 
recommendations to be communicated to offsite authorities. 
Classification of the hydrogen monitors as Category 3 and removal of 
the hydrogen monitors from TS will not prevent an accident 
management strategy through the use of the SAMGs [severe accident 
management guidelines], the emergency plan (EP), the emergency 
operating procedures (EOP), and site survey monitoring that support 
modification of emergency plan protective action recommendations 
(PARs).
    Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen recombiners and 
relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal 
of these requirements from TS, 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 Previously Evaluated

    The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and 
relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal 
of these requirements from TS, will not result in any failure mode 
not previously analyzed. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen 
monitor equipment was intended to mitigate a design-basis hydrogen 
release. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen monitor equipment are 
not considered accident precursors, nor does their existence or 
elimination have any adverse impact on the pre-accident state of the 
reactor core or post accident confinement of radionuclides within 
the containment building.
    Therefore, this 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 the Margin of Safety.

    The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and 
relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal 
of these requirements from TS, in light of existing plant equipment, 
instrumentation, procedures, and programs that provide effective 
mitigation of and recovery from reactor accidents, results in a 
neutral impact to the margin of safety.
    The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge 
systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the 
limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated 
from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this 
hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis 
LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional 
probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after 
the onset of core damage.
    Category 3 hydrogen monitors are adequate to provide rapid 
assessment of current reactor core conditions and the direction of 
degradation while effectively responding to the event in order to 
mitigate the consequences of the accident. The intent of the 
requirements established as a result of the TMI [Three Mile Island], 
Unit 2 accident, can be adequately met without reliance on safety-
related hydrogen monitors.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety. Removal of hydrogen monitoring from TS will 
not result in a significant reduction in their functionality, 
reliability, and availability.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee 
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 request for amendments involves NSHC.
    Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel 
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office 
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, 
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: July 14, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
modify the Technical Specifications (TSs) to establish more effective 
and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative requirements 
related to ensuring the habitability of the control room envelope (CRE) 
in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[[Page 26432]]

(NRC)-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification 
change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.'' 
Specifically, the proposed amendments would revise TS 3.7.10, ``Control 
Room Area Ventilation,'' and TS Section 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals.'' 
The NRC staff issued a ``Notice of Availability of Technical 
Specification Improvement to Modify Requirements Regarding Control Room 
Envelope Habitability Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement 
Process'' associated with TSTF-448, Revision 3, in the Federal Register 
on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022). The notice included a model safety 
evaluation, a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) 
determination and a model license amendment request. In its application 
dated July 14, 2008, the licensee affirmed the applicability of the 
model NSHC determination which is presented below.
    Implementation of the proposed amendment to the TSs will impact the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). As a result, it will be 
necessary to revise various sections of the UFSAR in accordance with 10 
CFR 50.71(e).
    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 NSHC 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 does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change 
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency 
ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to 
minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE 
atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents 
previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency 
ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency 
ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident 
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify 
the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to 
assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency 
ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological 
consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that 
the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the 
consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. 
Therefore, the proposed 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 does not impact the accident analysis. The 
proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of 
the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during 
accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of 
design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No 
new or different accidents result from performing the new 
surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does 
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed 
change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is 
consistent with current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.

Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in the Margin of Safety

    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety 
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an 
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. 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. 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: Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Associate General 
Counsel and Managing Attorney, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 526 South 
Church Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.
    Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, 
Unit No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas.
    Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, 
Unit No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas.
    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.
    Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York.
    Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, 
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Westchester County, 
New York.
    Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan.
    Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim 
Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts.
    Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, 
Louisiana.
    Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam 
Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.
    Date of amendment request: April 27, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would delete 
those portions of Technical Specifications (TSs) superseded by Title 10 
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, Subpart I, 
consistent with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS 
Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-511, ``Eliminate Working Hour 
Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.''
    The NRC issued a ``Notice of Availability of Model Safety 
Evaluation, Model No Significant Hazards Determination, and Model 
Application for Licensees That Wish To Adopt TSTF-511, Revision 0, 
`Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions From TS 5.2.2 To Support 
Compliance With 10 CFR Part 26' '' in the Federal Register on December 
30, 2008 (73 FR 79923). In its application dated April 27, 2009, the 
licensee affirmed the applicability of the model no significant hazards 
consideration.
    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:


[[Page 26433]]



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 26. Removal of the Technical 
Specification requirements will be performed concurrently with the 
implementation of the 10 CFR 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 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 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 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 analysis adopted by the licensee 
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.
    Attorneys for licensee: Terence A. Burke, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, 
Mississippi 39213.
    William C. Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear 
Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
    Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, 
Unit No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas
    Date of amendment request: March 2, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change will modify 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1.1, ``Reactor Protective 
Instrumentation,'' and TS 3.3.2.1, ``Engineered Safety Feature 
Actuation System Instrumentation.'' Specifically, Table 3.3-1, Table 
4.3-1, and Table 3.3-3, respectively, will adopt a Mode of 
Applicability for the Logarithmic (Log) Power Level High, Pressurizer 
Pressure Low, Steam Generator (SG) Pressure Low, and the SG 
Differential Pressure and Level Low functions to be consistent with the 
improved Standard TSs (STS) of NUREG-1432, Revision 3,\1\ ``Standard 
Technical Specifications, Combustion Engineering Plants.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Incorrectly referred to as ``Revision 3.1'' in the Entergy 
Operations, Inc. March 2, 2009, application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change acts to reconcile a difference between 
Emergency Feedwater (EFW) TS 3.7.1.2 and Table 3.3-3 of TS 3.3.3.2, 
or differences between the current ANO-2 [Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
2] TSs and the STS in relation to Reactor Protective System (RPS) or 
ESFAS functions. The TS 3.7.1.2 Mode of Applicability for EFW is 
based on plant design basis. Revising the associated actuation 
instrumentation Mode of Applicability to match that of TS 3.7.1.2 
will continue to ensure that automatic actuation of the EFW system 
will occur during any Mode 1, 2, or 3 event that results in a Steam 
Generator (SG) actuation setpoint being reached. The change is not 
associated with any accident precursor or initiator. EFW will 
continue to be automatically actuated and capable of a supporting 
plant cooldown through to Mode 4, where the Shutdown Cooling (SDC) 
system may be placed in service for decay heat removal purposes. 
Upon a loss of SDC, EFW may be manually initiated (if available) or 
a back-up source of SG makeup can be placed in service, such as the 
non-safety Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) pump or other non-safety Main 
Feedwater (MFW) system pumps. These non-safety pumps can be powered 
from the onsite Alternate AC [Alternating Current] Diesel Generator 
should a loss of offsite power event occur.
    Changes to the Modes of Applicability for the Log Power Level 
High, Pressurizer Pressure Low, and SG Pressure Low reactor trip 
functions do not involve physical plant changes or changes to the 
current safety analysis. These functions will continue to provide 
their respective protective feature in the operational modes 
consistent with the design basis and STS. None of these functions 
are associated with accident precursors.
    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 kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not result in any plant modifications 
or change in the way the plant is designed to function. The proposed 
change is not associated with any accident precursor or initiator.
    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.
    EFW will continue to be automatically actuated and capable of 
supporting a plant cooldown to Mode 4, where the Shutdown Cooling 
(SDC) system may be placed in service for decay heat removal 
purposes. Upon a loss of SDC, EFW may be manually initiated (if 
available) or a back-up source of SG makeup can be placed in 
service, such as the non-safety Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW)

[[Page 26434]]

pump or other non-safety Main Feedwater (MFW) system pumps. These 
non-safety pumps can be powered from the onsite Alternate AC Diesel 
Generator should a loss of offsite power event occur.
    Changes to the Modes of Applicability for the Log Power Level 
High, Pressurizer Pressure Low, and SG Pressure Low reactor trip 
functions do not involve physical plant changes or changes to the 
current safety analysis. These functions will continue to provide 
their respective protective feature in the operational modes 
consistent with the design basis and STS.
    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 
Council--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, 
Mississippi 39213.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
No.1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: April 16, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change is that 
Facility Operating License NPF-86 for Seabrook Station be amended to 
reflect a change in the legal name of the Licensee and Co-owner from 
``FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC'' to ``NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) 
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. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    This request is for administrative changes only. No actual 
facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the 
proposed changes. Therefore, this request has no impact on the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    This request is for administrative changes only. No actual 
facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the 
proposed changes and no failure modes not bounded by previously 
evaluated accidents will be created. Therefore, this request does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the 
level of radiation dose to the public. This request is for 
administrative changes only. No actual plant equipment or accident 
analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Additionally, the 
proposed changes will not relax any criteria used to establish 
safety limits, will not relax any safety system settings, and will 
not relax the bases for any limiting conditions of operation. 
Therefore, these proposed changes do 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 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, Florida Power & Light Company, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Section Chief: Harold Chernoff.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES Units 1 and 2), Luzerne County, 
Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: March 24, 2009, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 30 and May 12, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
change the SSES Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.8.1 for 
AC Sources--Operating, to extend the allowable Completion Time for the 
Required Actions associated with one offsite circuit inoperable due to 
the replacement of Startup Transformer Number 20 (ST No. 20). The 
proposed change to SSES Units 1 and 2 TS would allow for a one-time 
only extension of limiting condition for operation 3.8.1 Action A. 3 to 
10 days during replacement of ST No. 20, while both units remain at 
power.
    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 proposal would change the Technical Specifications 3.8.1, 
``AC Sources--Operating,'' to extend, on a one-time basis, the 
allowable Completion Time for Required Action A.3, from 72 hours to 
10 days.
    The consequence of a loss of offsite power (LOOP) event has been 
evaluated in the FSAR [final safety analysis report] and the Station 
Blackout evaluation. Increasing the completion time for one offsite 
power source from 72 hours to 10 days does not increase the 
consequences of a LOOP event nor change the evaluation of LOOP 
events as stated in the FSAR or Station Blackout evaluation.
    The proposed one-time only change to the TS 3.8.1 Required 
Action A.3 Completion does not, of [by] itself, result in an 
increase in the risk of plant operation. The incremental conditional 
core damage probability (ICCDP) and incremental conditional large 
early release probability (ICLERP) do not exceed the regulatory 
guidance thresholds for these values.
    Therefore, this proposal 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 result in a change in the manner in 
which the electrical distribution subsystems provide plant 
protection. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety 
analysis. Allowing the completion time for Action A.3 to increase 
from 72 hours to 10 days is a one-time change that will allow 
continued operation of Unit 1 and 2 while replacing ST No. 20.
    The accident analyses affected by this proposed change are the 
LOOP events discussed in the FSAR. The proposed change is consistent 
with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating 
practice. The potential for the loss of other plant systems or 
equipment to mitigate the effects of an accident is not altered.
    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 proposed change does not affect the acceptance criteria for 
any analyzed event nor is there a change to any Safety Limit. There 
will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are 
determined nor [would there be] any effect on those plant systems 
necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. 
There will be no impact on the Safety Limits or any other margin of 
safety. The radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria will 
continue to be met.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this

[[Page 26435]]

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: Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General 
Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3, 
Allentown, PA 18101-1179.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief : John P. Boska.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: March 22, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the definition of the fully withdrawn position of the Rod 
Cluster Control Assemblies (RCCAs) to minimize localized RCCA wear. 
Currently, the fully withdrawn position for the RCCAs is defined in the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) as being within the interval of 222 to 
228 steps withdrawn (i.e., steps above rod bottom). The proposed change 
would allow the fully withdrawn position to be defined as being within 
the interval of 222 to 230 steps withdrawn.
    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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The revised RCCA definition of FULLY WITHDRAWN will not result 
in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded with respect to the 
safety analyses documented in the [Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR)]. The change has been evaluated to determine the 
effect on reactor physics, transient analysis (Non-[loss-of-coolant 
accident (LOCA)]), LOCA analysis, and mechanical operation of the 
RCCAs. The evaluations have determined that the reload analysis and 
assumed control rod drop time parameters remain bounding. The 
specific FULLY WITHDRAWN position will be specified in the reload 
analysis for each operating cycle. Prior to each operating cycle the 
actual rod drop times are required to be confirmed as less than or 
equal to 2.7 seconds per TS Surveillance 4.1.3.3. In addition, since 
the change does not impact any conditions that would initiate a 
transient, the probability of previously analyzed events is not 
increased. Also, RCCA repositioning will reduce the possibility of 
rod cladding failure, thereby minimizing the chance of absorber 
material being introduced into the reactor coolant system. 
Therefore, the proposed changes will not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The RCCAs will continue to meet their functional requirements 
and will perform as designed during design basis events. The RCCAs 
will remain inserted in the guide thimbles of the fuel assemblies 
during operation with the proposed withdrawal limits; therefore 
their performance is unaffected by this change. The RCCAs will 
maintain their mechanical integrity and remain structurally intact 
during a design basis event. The effect of periodically 
repositioning the RCCAs is bounded by the analyses in the UFSAR. 
Also, RCCA repositioning will reduce the possibility of rod cladding 
failure, thereby minimizing the chance of absorber material being 
introduced into the reactor coolant system. Therefore the proposed 
change will not create a new or different kind of accident [from any 
accident previously evaluated].
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The revised RCCA FULLY WITHDRAWN definition has an insignificant 
effect on control rod drop time. The rod drop time will continue to 
be bounded by that assumed in the UFSAR and required by TS. Prior to 
each operating cycle the actual rod drop times are required to be 
confirmed as less than or equal to 2.7 seconds per TS 4.1.3.3. No 
change is being made to the lowest allowable position; therefore 
prior assessments regarding minimal rod insertion into the active 
fuel region remain applicable and unchanged.
    Consequently, there is no impact on previously analyzed 
conditions for both axial and radial power distributions, critical 
boron concentrations and temperature dependent shutdown margins. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in any safety margin.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, with changes in the areas noted above, 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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business 
Unit--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments 
to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The following notices were previously published as separate 
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were 
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the 
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action 
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the 
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued 
involving no significant hazards consideration.
    For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on 
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period 
of the original notice.

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

[[Page 26436]]

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d5d495f035f485e42585f4e486d435f4e034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c0b0a4b2eeb2a5b3afb5b2a3a580aeb2a3eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>.

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 
1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of application for amendment: January 15, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments modified Technical 
Specifications (TSs) 3.3.10, 3.6.7, and 5.6.6 to delete the 
requirements related to hydrogen recombiners and hydrogen monitors. The 
TS changes support implementation of the revisions to 10 CFR 50.44, 
``Combustible gas control system for nuclear power reactors,'' that 
became effective on October 16, 2003. The changes are consistent with 
Revision 1 of the NRC-approved Industry/Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-
447, ``Elimination of Hydrogen Recombiners and Change to Hydrogen and 
Oxygen Monitors.''
    Date of issuance: May 14, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 1-173; Unit 2-173; Unit 3-173.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The 
amendment revised the Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 10, 2009 (74 FR 
10307).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 14, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North 
Carolina

    Date of application for amendments: October 6, 2008.
    Brief Description of amendments: The amendments remove work hour 
controls and/or references to the NRC Generic Letter 82-12 from the 
administrative control sections of the technical specifications. On 
April 17, 2007, the NRC approved a final rule that amended 10 CFR Part 
26 and, among other changes, established requirements for managing 
worker fatigue at operating nuclear power plants. Subpart I, ``Managing 
Fatigue,'' of 10 CFR Part 26 specifically addresses managing worker 
fatigue by designating individual break requirements, work hour limits, 
and annual reporting requirements. Subpart I was published in the 
Federal Register on March 31, 2008 (73 FR 16966), with a required 
implementation period of 18 months. Compliance is, therefore, required 
by October 1, 2009. In order to support compliance with 10 CFR Part 26, 
Subpart I, the licensee is proposing to remove these work hour controls 
from Technical Specification 5.2.2.e at the Brunswick Steam Electric 
Plant, Units 1 and 2.
    Date of issuance: May 7, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
no later than October 1, 2009.
    Amendment Nos.: 253 and 281.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments 
change the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 27, 2009 (74 FR 
4767).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated May 7, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon 
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North 
Carolina

    Date of application for amendment: October 6, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment removes work hour 
controls and/or references to the NRC Generic Letter 82-12 from the 
administrative control sections of the technical specifications. On 
April 17, 2007, the NRC approved a final rule that amended 10 CFR Part 
26 and, among other changes, established requirements for managing 
worker fatigue at operating nuclear power plants. Subpart I, ``Managing 
Fatigue,'' of 10 CFR Part 26 specifically addresses managing worker 
fatigue by designating individual break requirements, work hour limits, 
and annual reporting requirements. Subpart I was published in the 
Federal Register on March 31, 2008 (73 FR 16966), with a required 
implementation period of 18 months. Compliance is, therefore, required 
by October 1, 2009. In order to support compliance with 10 CFR Part 26, 
Subpart I, the licensee is proposing to remove these work hour controls 
from Technical Specification 6.2.2.f at the Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1.
    Date of issuance: May 7, 2009.
    Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented by October 1, 
2009.
    Amendment No.: 130.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: The amendment 
revises the technical specifications and facility operating license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 27, 2009 (74 FR 
4769).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated May 7, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendment: October 6, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment removes work hour 
controls and/or references to the NRC Generic Letter 82-12 from the 
administrative control sections of the technical specifications. On 
April 17, 2007, the NRC approved a final rule that amended 10 CFR Part 
26 and, among other changes, established requirements for managing 
worker fatigue at operating nuclear power plants. Subpart I, ``Managing 
Fatigue,'' of 10 CFR Part 26 specifically addresses managing worker 
fatigue by designating individual break requirements, work hour limits, 
and annual reporting requirements. Subpart I was published in the 
Federal Register on March 31, 2008 (73 FR 16966), with a required 
implementation period of 18 months. Compliance is, therefore, required 
by October 1, 2009. In order to support compliance with 10 CFR Part 26, 
Subpart I, the licensee is proposing to remove these work hour controls 
from Technical Specification 5.2.2.e at the H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit 2.
    Date of issuance: May 7, 2009.

[[Page 26437]]

    Effective date: Effective as of the date of issuance and shall be 
implemented no later than October 1, 2009.
    Amendment No.: 221.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: The amendment 
revises the technical specifications and facility operating license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 27, 2009 (74 FR 
4768).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated May 7, 2009.
    Public comments received as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 (Braidwood), Will County, Illinois 
Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 
(Byron), Ogle County, Illinois.

    Date of application for amendment: June 26, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revise Technical 
Specification Surveillance Requirements 3.8.1.7, 3.8.1.12, 3.8.1.15, 
and 3.8.1.20 for the Braidwood and Byron emergency diesel generator 
(EDG) start time. The current requirement is to have the EDG within 
voltage and frequency limits within 10 seconds after the start signal. 
The revised change is to have the EDG above minimum voltage and 
frequency within 10 seconds and verified to be within voltage and 
frequency limits at steady state conditions. The revision is consistent 
with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Change 
Traveler, TSTF-163, ``Minimum vs. Steady State Voltage and Frequency,'' 
Revision 2.
    Date of issuance: May 11, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: Braidwood Unit 1-159; Braidwood Unit 2-159; Byron 
Unit No. 1-164; and Byron Unit No. 2-164.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and NPF-66: 
The amendments revise the TSs and Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 26, 2008 (73 FR 
50360).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 11, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

    Date of application for amendment: October 6, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment removes work hour 
controls and/or references to the NRC Generic Letter 82-12 from the 
administrative control sections of the technical specifications. On 
April 17, 2007, the NRC approved a final rule that amended 10 CFR Part 
26 and, among other changes, established requirements for managing 
worker fatigue at operating nuclear power plants. Subpart I, ``Managing 
Fatigue,'' of 10 CFR Part 26 specifically addresses managing worker 
fatigue by designating individual break requirements, work hour limits, 
and annual reporting requirements. Subpart I was published in the 
Federal Register on March 31, 2008 (73 FR 16966), with a required 
implementation period of 18 months. Compliance is, therefore, required 
by October 1, 2009. In order to support compliance with 10 CFR Part 26, 
Subpart I, the licensee is proposing to remove these work hour controls 
from Technical Specification 5.2.2.e at the Crystal River Unit 3 
Nuclear Generating Plant.
    Date of issuance: May 7, 2009.
    Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented by October 1, 
2009.
    Amendment No.: 233.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revises the 
technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 27, 2009 (74 FR 
4773).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated May 7, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: July 2, 2008, as supplemented by e-mails 
dated February 18 and May 5, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment made administrative 
changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Fort Calhoun 
Station, Unit 1 (FCS). The proposed changes corrected several 
typographical errors and made administrative clarifications to the TSs. 
The NRC staff denies the heading changes to TS Limiting Condition for 
Operation (LCO) 2.13 Table 2-11 and TS LCO Table 2-1 which are not 
editorial or administrative in nature and, therefore, are not 
acceptable.
    Date of issuance: May 12, 2009.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days.
    Amendment No.: 259.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR 
65697). The supplemental e-mails dated February 18 and May 5, 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 
November 4, 2008 (73 FR 65697).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated May 12, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272 and 50-311, Hope Creek 
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of application for amendments: July 21, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments delete the 
requirements related to plant staff working hours from Section 6.0, 
``Administrative Controls'' of the respective plants' Technical 
Specifications (TSs). The requirements being deleted had been 
incorporated into the TSs based on the guidance in Generic Letter (GL) 
82-12, ``Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours.'' The guidance in GL 
82-12 has been superseded by the requirements in Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 26, ``Fitness for Duty 
Programs,'' Subpart I, ``Managing Fatigue.''
    Date of issuance: May 14, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented by 
October 1, 2009.
    Amendment Nos.: 177, 290 and 274.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-57, DPR-70 and DPR-75: The 
amendments revised the TSs and the Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR 
58676).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 14, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No

[[Page 26438]]

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas

    Date of amendment request: August 18, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.5.2, ``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System]--
Operating'' requirements. The change is in accordance with Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-325-A, Revision 0, ``ECCS 
Conditions and Required Actions with <100% Equivalent ECCS Flow.''
    Date of issuance: May 15, 2009.
    Effective date: Effective as date of issuance and shall be 
implemented within 90 days of the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 182.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment 
revised the Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR 
58680).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 15, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and 
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency 
Circumstances)

    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 for the 
amendment 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.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of 
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has 
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area 
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of 
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the 
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If 
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the 
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments 
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has 
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
significant hazards consideration is involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in 
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have 
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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 
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating 
License, 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 System's (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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bdcdd9cf93cfd8ced2c8cfded8fdd3cfde93dad2cb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="29594d5b075b4c5a465c5b4a4c69475b4a074e465f">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date 
of publication of this notice, person(s) may file a request for a 
hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject 
facility operating license and any person whose interest may be 
affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in 
the proceeding must file a written request via electronic submission 
through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing and a petition for leave 
to intervene. 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, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are 
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at 
1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ff8f9b8dd18d9a8c908a8d9c9abf918d9cd1989089"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a7a6e7824786f79657f78696f4a647869246d657c">[email protected]</span></a>. 
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed 
by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by 
the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or

[[Page 26439]]

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or 
an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and 
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner 
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.\1\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To the extent that the applications contain attachments and 
supporting documents that are not publicly available because they 
are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information, 
petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the 
applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a 
protective order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha 
designation within one of the following groups:
    1. Technical--Primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the 
applications.
    2. Environmental--Primarily concerns/issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the 
applications.
    3. Miscellaneous--Does not fall into one of the categories outlined 
above.
    As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors 
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall 
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act 
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a 
petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another 
sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to 
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that 
contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor a representative who shall have the authority to act for the 
petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.
    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. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the 
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing 
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any 
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
    A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene 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 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a5ede0e4f7ecebe2e1eae6eee0f1e5ebf7e68be2eaf3">[email protected]</a> 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 NRC-issued 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/site-help/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/apply-certificates.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/e-submittals.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/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC Meta-System Help 
Desk, which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday. The Meta-System Help Desk can be contacted by 
telephone at 1-866-672-7640 or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eea3bda6aac0bc8b9d819b9c8d8bae809c8dc0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="014c5249452f5364726e74736264416f73622f666e77">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting

[[Page 26440]]

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 first-class mail as of the time of 
deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery 
service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition 
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be 
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later 
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
    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. 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.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-280, Surry Power 
Station, Unit No. 1, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: May 5, 2009, as supplemented by letter 
dated May 6, 2009.
    Brief Description of amendments: This amendment revised Technical 
Specifications (TSs) 6.4.Q, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' and TS 
6.6.3, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to modify the 
interim alternate repair criteria for SG B tube repair to allow tubes 
with a permeability variation in the lowest one inch of the tube sheet 
to remain in service during Refueling Outage 22 (spring 2009) and the 
subsequent operating cycle. The amendment also revised reporting 
requirement TS 6.6.A.3, ``SG Tube Inspection Report.''
    Date of issuance: May 7, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 264.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-32: Amendment revises the 
license and TSs.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final no significant 
hazards consideration determination are contained in a safety 
evaluation dated May 7, 2009.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, 
Dominion Resources Services, Inc.,120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day May 2009.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-12511 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>