26428 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 

community; arts organizations; 

Members of Congress; the general 

public; local, State, and regional arts 

organizations; Endowment staff; and 

others. 

Kathleen Edwards, 

Support Services Supervisor, National 

Endowment for the Arts. 

[FR Doc. E9–12682 Filed 6–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7536–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Proposal Review Panel for Chemistry; 

Notice of Meeting 

In accordance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463, as amended), the National Science 

Foundation announces the following 

meeting. 

Name: Proposal Review Panel for 

Chemistry (1191). 

Date/Time: June 15, 2009, 5 p.m.–9 p.m.; 

June 16, 2009, 8:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m.; June 17, 

2009, 8:30 a.m.–1 p.m. 

Place: University of Washington, Bagley 

Hall, Seattle, WA 98195–1700. 

Type of Meeting: Part-Open. 

Contact Person: Katharine Covert, National 

Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 703– 

292–4950. 

Purpose of Meeting: To conduct a post 

award site visit evaluation for the Center for 

Enabling New Transformations through 

Catalysis (CENTC), a research center funded 

through the Centers for Chemical Innovation 

(CCI) Program. 

Agenda: 

Monday, June 15, 2009 

5 p.m.–9 p.m. Closed—Executive Session. 

Tuesday, June 16 

8:30 a.m.–11:40 a.m. Open—Welcome, 

Overview of Center, Oral Research 

Presentations. 

11:40 a.m.–1 p.m. Lunch. 

12:30 p.m.–1 p.m. Closed Executive 

Session. 

1 p.m.–1:50 p.m. Open—Oral Research 

Presentations. 

1:50 p.m.–3 p.m. Open—Poster Session. 

3 p.m.–5 p.m. Open—Presentations on 

Center Management and Impacts on 

Innovation, Education, Diversity and 

Outreach. 

5 p.m.–5:30 p.m. Closed—Executive 

Session. 

Wednesday, June 17 

8:30 a.m.–1 p.m. Closed—Executive 

Session, Report Preparation. 

Reason for Closing: Topics to be discussed 

and evaluated during the site review will 

include information of a proprietary or 

confidential nature, including technical 

information; and information on personnel. 

These matters are exempt under 5 

U.S.C.552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government 

in the Sunshine Act. 

Dated: May 28, 2009. 

Susanne Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–12721 Filed 6–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 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 

hearingdocket@nrc.gov, or by calling 

(301) 415–1677, to request (1) a digital 

ID certificate, which allows the 

participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and/or (2) creation of an 

electronic docket for the proceeding 

(even in instances in which the 

petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or 

representative) already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Each 

petitioner/requestor will need to 

download the Workplace Forms 

Viewer TM to access the Electronic 

Information Exchange (EIE), a 

component of the E-Filing system. The 

Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and 

is available at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. 

Information about applying for a digital 

ID certificate is available on NRC’s 

public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

site-help/e-submittals/applycertificates.html. 

Once a petitioner/requestor has 

obtained a digital ID certificate, had a 

docket created, and downloaded the EIE 

viewer, it can then submit a request for 

hearing or petition for leave to 

intervene. Submissions should be in 

Portable Document Format (PDF) in 

accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered 

complete at the time the filer submits its 

documents through EIE. To be timely, 

an electronic filing must be submitted to 

the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the due date. Upon 

receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing 

system time-stamps the document and 

sends the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

EIE system also distributes an e-mail 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically may 

seek assistance through the ‘‘Contact 

Us’’ link located on the NRC Web site 

at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html or by calling the NRC 

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 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file a 

motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 

2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 

requesting authorization to continue to 

submit documents in paper format. 

Such filings must be submitted by: (1) 

First-class mail addressed to the Office 

of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

26430 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or 

(2) courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service to the Office of the 

Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White 

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing a document in this 

manner are responsible for serving the 

document on all other participants. 

Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in 

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 

expedited delivery service upon 

depositing the document with the 

provider of the service. 

Non-timely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission, the presiding officer, or 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

that the petition and/or request should 

be granted and/or the contentions 

should be admitted, based on a 

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 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., 

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

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2, Calvert County, Maryland 

Date of 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 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-WaterCooled 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 designbasis 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 designbasis 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 safetyrelated 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 

26432 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 

(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: 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 26433 

1 Incorrectly referred to as ‘‘Revision 3.1’’ in the 

Entergy Operations, Inc. March 2, 2009, application. 

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.’’ 

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) 

26434 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 

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 onetime 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 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 

26436 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items are available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209, 

(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 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 

26438 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 

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 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

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/readingrm/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 email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 26439 

1To 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. 

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. 

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 

HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV or by 

calling (301) 415–1677, to request (1) a 

digital ID certificate, which allows the 

participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and/or (2) creation of an 

electronic docket for the proceeding 

(even in instances in which the 

petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or 

representative) already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Each 

petitioner/requestor will need to 

download the Workplace Forms 

ViewerTM to access the Electronic 

Information Exchange (EIE), a 

component of the E-Filing system. The 

Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and 

is available at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. 

Information about applying for a digital 

ID certificate is available on NRC’s 

public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

site-help/e-submittals/applycertificates.html. 

Once a petitioner/requestor has 

obtained a digital ID certificate, had a 

docket created, and downloaded the EIE 

viewer, it can then submit a request for 

hearing or petition for leave to 

intervene. Submissions should be in 

Portable Document Format (PDF) in 

accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered 

complete at the time the filer submits its 

documents through EIE. To be timely, 

an electronic filing must be submitted to 

the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the due date. Upon 

receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing 

system time-stamps the document and 

sends the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

EIE system also distributes an e-mail 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically may 

seek assistance through the ‘‘Contact 

Us’’ link located on the NRC Web site 

at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html or by calling the NRC 

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 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

26440 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 

documents electronically must file a 

motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 

2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 

requesting authorization to continue to 

submit documents in paper format. 

Such filings must be submitted by: (1) 

First class mail addressed to the Office 

of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or 

(2) courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service to the Office of the 

Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White 

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing a document in this 

manner are responsible for serving the 

document on all other participants. 

Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in 

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 

expedited delivery service upon 

depositing the document with the 

provider of the service. 

Non-timely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission, the presiding officer, or 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

that the petition and/or request should 

be granted and/or the contentions 

should be admitted, based on a 

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 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0014] 

Draft Regulatory Guides: Issuance, 

Availability 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance and 

availability of Draft Regulatory Guides 

DG–1191, DG–1192, and DG–1193. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wallace E. Norris, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone: (301) 251– 

7650 or e-mail to 

Wallace.Norris@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing for public 

comment three Draft Regulatory Guides 

(DGs) in the agency’s ‘‘Regulatory 

Guide’’ series. Specifically, these are 

Revision 35 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 

1.84, ‘‘Design, Fabrication, and 

Materials Code Case Acceptability, 

ASME Section III’’ (temporarily 

identified by its task number, DG–1191); 

Revision 16 of RG 1.147, ‘‘Inservice 

Inspection Code Case Acceptability, 

ASME Section XI, Division 1’’ 

(temporarily identified by its task 

number DG–1192); and Revision 3 of RG 

1.193, ‘‘ASME Code Cases Not 

Approved for Use’’ (temporarily 

identified by its task number DG–1193). 

This series was developed to describe 

and make available to the public such 

information as methods acceptable to 

the NRC staff for implementing specific 

parts of NRC’s regulations, techniques 

the staff uses in evaluating specific 

problems or postulated accidents, and 

data the staff needs in its review of 

applications for permits and licenses. 

II. Discussion 

Regulatory Guide 1.84 (temporarily 

identified by its task number, DG–1191) 

lists all Section III Code Cases that NRC 

has approved for use. For Revision 35 of 

the guide, NRC reviewed the Section III 

Code Cases listed in Supplements 2–11 

to the 2004 Edition of the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel 

(BPV) Code and Supplement 0 to the 

2007 Edition (Supplement 0 also serves 

as Supplement 12 to the 2004 Edition). 

Appendix A to this guide lists the 

supplements reviewed, the applicable 

edition, and the date on which each 

supplement was approved by the ASME 

Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards. 

Appendix B is a list of the Section III 

Code Cases addressed in the eleven 

supplements. Finally, Appendix C is a 

current list of all Section III Code Cases. 

Provisions of the ASME BPV Code 

have been used since 1971 as one part 

of the framework to establish the 

necessary design, fabrication, 

construction, testing, and performance 

requirements for structures, systems, 

and components important to safety. 

Among other things, ASME standards 

committees develop improved methods 

for the construction and inservice 

inspection (ISI) of ASME Classes 1, 2, 3, 

MC (metal containment), and CC 

(concrete containment) nuclear power 

plant components. A broad spectrum of 

stakeholders participate in the ASME 

process, which helps to ensure that the 

various interests are considered. 

The regulation in Title 10, Part 50, of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

10 CFR 50.55a(c), ‘‘Reactor Coolant 

Pressure Boundary,’’ requires, in part,