Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Notices 28575 

LS01, Huntsville, AL 35812; telephone 

(256) 544–0013; fax (256) 544–0258. 

NASA Case No. MFS–32342–1–CIP: 

Nuclear Fuel Element Using 

Curvilinearly Grooved Fuel Rings; 

NASA Case No. MFS–32733–1: 

Unbalanced-Flow, Fluid-Mixing Plug 

with Metering Capabilities; 

NASA Case No. MFS–32748–1: Flow 

Plug with Length-to-Hole Size 

Uniformity for Use in Flow 

Conditioning and Flow Metering; 

NASA Case No. MFS–32651–1: 

Orientation Control Method and System 

for Object in Motion. 

Dated: June 10, 2009. 

Richard W. Sherman, 

Deputy General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E9–14059 Filed 6–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0234] 

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 21, 

2009, to June 3, 2009. The last biweekly 

notice was published on June 2, 2009 

(74 FR 26428). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 

of the facility in accordance with the 

proposed amendment would not (1) 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated; or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, 

Directives and Editing Branch, TWB– 

05–B01M, Division of Administrative 

Services, Office of Administration, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and 

should cite the publication date and 

page number of this Federal Register 

notice. Copies of written comments 

received may be examined at the 

Commission’s Public Document Room 

(PDR), located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area O1F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license. 

Requests for a hearing and a petition for 

leave to intervene shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Rules of Practice for Domestic 

Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR Part 

2. Interested person(s) should consult a 

current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 

available at the Commission’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Public 

File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

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

reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a 

request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene is filed within 60 

days, the Commission or a presiding 

officer designated by the Commission or 

by the Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

28576 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Notices 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the petitioner/requestor intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the 

amendment under consideration. The 

contention must be one which, if 

proven, would entitle the petitioner/ 

requestor to relief. A petitioner/ 

requestor who fails to satisfy these 

requirements with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. 

If a hearing is requested, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

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

accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, 

which the NRC promulgated in August 

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

process requires participants to submit 

and serve all adjudicatory documents 

over the Internet or in some cases to 

mail copies on electronic storage media. 

Participants may not submit paper 

copies of their filings unless they seek 

a waiver in accordance with the 

procedures described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

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

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

petitioner/requestor must contact the 

Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 

hearing.docket@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 

electronic filing Help Desk, which is 

available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. The 

electronic filing Help Desk can be 

contacted by telephone at 1–866–672– 

7640 or by e-mail at 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file a 

motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 

2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 

requesting authorization to continue to 

submit documents in paper format. 

Such filings must be submitted by: (1) 

First-class mail addressed to the Office 

of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or 

(2) courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service to the Office of the 

Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White 

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing a document in this 

manner are responsible for serving the 

document on all other participants. 

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

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 

expedited delivery service upon 

depositing the document with the 

provider of the service. 

Non-timely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission, the presiding officer, or 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

that the petition and/or request should 

be granted and/or the contentions 

should be admitted, based on a 

balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http:// 

ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, 

unless excluded pursuant to an order of 

the Commission, an Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. 

Participants are requested not to include 

personal privacy information, such as 

Social Security numbers, home 

addresses, or home phone numbers in 

their filings, unless an NRC regulation 

or other law requires submission of such 

information. With respect to 

copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Notices 28577 

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.govnrc.gov. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket No. 50–346, 

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 

No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio 

Date of amendment request: April 15, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

incorporate the use of alternate 

methodologies for the calculation of 

reactor pressure vessel beltline weld 

initial reference temperatures, the 

calculation of the adjusted reference 

temperatures (ARTs), the development 

of the reactor pressure vessel pressuretemperature (P–T) limit curves, and the 

low temperature reactor coolant system 

(RCS) overpressure analysis into 

Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.4. The 

amendment would also revise the 

analysis requirement for the low 

temperature RCS overpressure events 

from 21 to 32 Effective Full Power Years 

(EFPY) contained in Operating License 

(OL) Condition 2.C(3)(d). 

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 amendment request proposes two 

changes to the TS/OL. The first change 

incorporates the use of alternative 

methodologies to develop the [Davis-Besse 

Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1] DBNPS 

P–T limit curves and [low temperature over 

pressure] LTOP limits into TS 5.6.4 to 

augment the existing listed methodology of 

BAW–10046A, Revision 2. The second 

change revises OL Condition 2.C(3)(d) to 

reflect the revised LTOP analysis is valid to 

32 EFPY. 

The first change incorporates the use of 

Topical Report BAW–2308, Revisions 1–A 

and 2–A; modified ORNL/TM 2006/530 

equations, and ASME Code Cases N–588 and 

N–640. The topical report and ASME code 

cases have been approved or accepted for use 

by the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] NRC 

(provided that any conditions/limitations are 

satisfied). The modified ORNL/TM 2006/530 

equations result in a more conservative ART 

value for the limiting reactor vessel 

component. The proposed additions to the 

methodologies for the reactor vessel P–T 

curve development provide an acceptable 

means of satisfying the requirements of 10 

CFR 50, Appendix G. The proposed additions 

do not alter the design or function of any 

plant equipment. Therefore, the proposed 

additions do not affect the probability or 

consequences of any previously evaluated 

accidents, including reactor coolant pressure 

boundary failures. 

The second change is considered 

administrative in nature and reflects the 

revised methodologies. It will not alter the 

design or operation of any plant equipment. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

affect the probability or consequences of any 

previously evaluated accidents. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The amendment request proposes two 

changes to the TS/OL. The first change 

incorporates the use of alternative 

methodologies to develop the DBNPS P–T 

limit curves and LTOP limits into TS 5.6.4 

to augment the existing listed methodology of 

BAW–10046A, Revision 2. The second 

change revises OL Condition 2.C(3)(d) to 

reflect that the revised analysis is valid to 32 

EFPY. 

The first change incorporates 

methodologies that either have been 

approved or accepted for use by the NRC 

(provided that any conditions/limitations are 

satisfied), or are conservative to current 

methodologies. The changes do not alter the 

design or function of any plant equipment. 

The P–T limit curves and LTOP limits will 

provide the same level of protection to the 

reactor coolant boundary as was previously 

evaluated. Therefore, the proposed changes 

do not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

The second change is considered 

administrative in nature and reflects the 

revised methodologies. It will not alter the 

design or operation of any plant equipment. 

Therefore, the proposed 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 amendment request proposes two 

changes to the TS/OL. The first change 

incorporates the use of alternative 

methodologies to develop the DBNPS P–T 

limit curves and LTOP limits into TS 5.6.4 

to augment the existing listed methodology of 

BAW–10046A, Revision 2. The second 

change revises OL Condition 2.C(3)(d) to 

reflect that the revised analysis is valid to 32 

EFPY. 

The first change incorporates 

methodologies that either have been 

approved or accepted for use by the NRC 

(provided that any conditions/limitations are 

satisfied), or are conservative to current 

methodologies. The second change is 

considered administrative in nature and 

reflects the revised methodologies. The 

changes do not alter the design or function 

of any plant equipment. The P–T limit curves 

and LTOP limits will provide the same level 

of protection to the reactor coolant boundary 

as was previously evaluated. Therefore, the 

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 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: David W. 

Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 

Corporation, Mail Stop A–GO–15, 76 

South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. 

NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs. 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, 

(NMPNS) Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile 

Point Nuclear Station Unit No. 2 (NMP 

2), Oswego County, New York 

Date of amendment request: March 

30, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify Technical Specification (TS) 

3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—Operating,’’ by 

revising certain Surveillance 

Requirements (SRs) pertaining to the 

Division 3 emergency diesel generator 

(DG). The Division 3 DG is an 

independent source of onsite alternating 

current (AC) power dedicated to the 

high-pressure core spray (HPCS) system. 

The TSs currently prohibit performing 

the DG testing required by certain SRs 

in either Modes 1 or 2 or in Modes 1, 

2, or 3. The proposed amendment 

would also remove these mode 

restrictions and allow certain SRs to be 

performed in any operating Mode for 

the Division 3 DG. 

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 amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The Division 3 (HPCS) DG and its 

associated emergency loads are accident 

mitigating features, not accident initiators. 

Therefore, the proposed TS changes to allow 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

28578 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Notices 

the performance of Division 3 DG 

surveillance testing in any plant operating 

mode will not significantly impact the 

probability of any previously evaluated 

accident. 

The design of plant equipment is not being 

modified by the proposed changes. As such, 

the ability of the Division 3 DG to respond 

to a design basis accident will not be 

adversely impacted by the proposed changes. 

The proposed changes to the TS surveillance 

testing requirements for the Division 3 DG do 

not affect the operability requirements for the 

DG, as verification of such operability will 

continue to be performed as required. 

Continued verification of operability 

supports the capability of the Division 3 DG 

to perform its required function of providing 

emergency power to HPCS system 

equipment, consistent with the plant safety 

analyses. Limiting testing to only one DG at 

a time ensures that design basis requirements 

are met. Should a fault occur while testing 

the Division 3 DG, there would be no 

significant impact on any accident 

consequences since the other two divisional 

DGs and associated emergency loads would 

be available to provide the minimum safety 

functions necessary to shut down the unit 

and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No changes are being made to the plant 

that would introduce any new accident 

causal mechanism. Equipment will be 

operated in the same configuration with the 

exception of the plant operating mode in 

which the Division 3 DG surveillance testing 

is conducted. Performance of these 

surveillances tests while online will continue 

to verify operability of the Division 3 DG. 

The proposed amendment does not impact 

any plant systems that are accident initiators 

and does not adversely impact any accident 

mitigating systems. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Margin of safety is related to confidence in 

the ability of the fission product barriers (fuel 

cladding, reactor coolant system, and 

primary containment) to perform their design 

functions during and following postulated 

accidents. The proposed changes to the TS 

surveillance testing requirements for the 

Division 3 DG do not affect the operability 

requirements for the DG, as verification of 

such operability will continue to be 

performed as required. Continued 

verification of operability supports the 

capability of the Division 3 DG to perform its 

required function of providing emergency 

power to HPCS system equipment, consistent 

with the plant safety analyses. Consequently, 

the performance of the fission product 

barriers will not be adversely impacted by 

implementation of the proposed amendment. 

In addition, the proposed changes do not 

alter setpoints or limits established or 

assumed by the accident analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mark J. 

Wetterhahn, Esquire, Winston & Strawn, 

1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20006. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas V. 

Pickett. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket No. 50–263, 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 

(MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PINGP), Goodhue 

County, Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: April 15, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

delete those portions of the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) superseded by 10 

CFR part 26, subpart I. The proposed 

change is consistent with Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) Improved Standard TS Change 

Traveler, TSTF–511, ‘‘Eliminate 

Working Hour Restrictions from TS 

5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 

CFR Part 26,’’ Revision 0. The 

availability of this TS improvement was 

announced in the Federal Register (FR) 

on December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79923) as 

part of the consolidated line item 

improvement process. The licensee 

concluded that the no significant 

hazards consideration determination as 

presented in the FR notice is applicable 

to MNGP and PINGP. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety-related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. 

Removal of the Technical Specification 

requirements will be performed concurrently 

with the implementation of the 10 CFR part 

26, Subpart I, requirements. The proposed 

change does not impact the physical 

configuration or function of plant structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner 

in which SSCs are operated, maintained, 

modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue 

is not an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an 

assumption in the consequence mitigation of 

any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, 

it is concluded that this change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Create the Possibility of a New or Different 

Kind of Accident From Any Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety-related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. 

Working hours will continue to be controlled 

in accordance with NRC requirements. The 

new rule allows for deviations from controls 

to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to 

safety or as necessary to maintain the 

security of the facility. This ensures that the 

new rule will not unnecessarily restrict 

working hours and thereby create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

plant configuration, require new plant 

equipment to be installed, alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

[affect] the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any [accident] 

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 plants] 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Notices 28579 

safely shutdown the plants and to maintain 

the plants 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 

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 requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, 

Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy 

Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, 

Minneapolis, MN 55401. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

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

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 

California 

Date of amendment request: May 5, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

delete those portions of Technical 

Specifications (TS) superseded by Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) Part 26, Subpart I, consistent 

with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC)-approved Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Improved Standard Technical 

Specification Change Traveler, TSTF– 

511, Revision 0, ‘‘Eliminate Working 

Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to 

Support Compliance with 10 CFR Part 

26.’’ 

The NRC staff 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). 

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 May 5, 2009, the licensee affirmed 

the applicability of the model NSHC 

determination. 

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 TS 

restrictions on working hours for personnel 

who perform safety-related functions. The TS 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. 

Removal of the TS requirements will be 

performed concurrently with the 

implementation of the 10 CFR part 26, 

subpart I, requirements. The proposed 

change does not impact the physical 

configuration or function of plant structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner 

in which SSCs are operated, maintained, 

modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue 

is not an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an 

assumption in the consequence mitigation of 

any accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Create the Possibility of a New or Different 

Kind of Accident From Any Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes TS 

restrictions on working hours for personnel 

who perform safety-related functions. The TS 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. 

Working hours will continue to be controlled 

in accordance with NRC requirements. The 

new rule allows for deviations from controls 

to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to 

safety or as necessary to maintain the 

security of the facility. This ensures that the 

new rule will not unnecessarily restrict 

working hours and thereby create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

plant configuration, require new plant 

equipment to be installed, alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

affect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin 

of Safety 

The proposed change removes TS 

restrictions on working hours for personnel 

who perform safety-related functions. The TS 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. The 

proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to plant or alter the manner 

in which plant systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined. The safety analysis 

acceptance criteria are not affected by this 

change. The proposed change will not result 

in plant operation in a configuration outside 

the design basis. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shut down the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 

Removal of plant-specific TS 

administrative requirements will not reduce 

a margin of safety because the requirements 

in 10 CFR part 26 are adequate to ensure that 

worker fatigue is managed. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, 

Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 

94120. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

STP Nuclear Operating Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South 

Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda 

County, Texas 

Date of amendment request: March 3, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

delete those portions of Technical 

Specifications (TS) superseded by Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) Part 26, Subpart I, consistent 

with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC)-approved Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Improved Technical Specification 

Change Traveler, TSTF–511, Revision 0, 

‘‘Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions 

from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance 

with 10 CFR Part 26.’’ In its application 

dated March 3, 2009, the licensee 

proposed one variation to the model 

application, a change to the applicable 

TS section from TS 5.2.2 to TS 6.2.2. 

The NRC staff 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). 

The notice included a model safety 

evaluation, a model no significant 

hazards consideration (NSHC) 

determination, and a model license 

amendment request. In its application 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

28580 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Notices 

dated March 3, 2009, the licensee 

affirmed the applicability of the model 

NSHC determination, which is 

presented below. 

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 proposed change removes TS 

restrictions on working hours for personnel 

who perform safety related functions. The TS 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. 

Removal of the TS requirements will be 

performed concurrently with the 

implementation of the 10 CFR part 26, 

subpart I, requirements. The proposed 

change does not impact the physical 

configuration or function of plant structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner 

in which SSCs are operated, maintained, 

modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue 

is not an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an 

assumption in the consequence mitigation of 

any accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Create the Possibility of a New or Different 

Kind of Accident From Any Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes TS 

restrictions on working hours for personnel 

who perform safety related functions. The TS 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. 

Working hours will continue to be controlled 

in accordance with NRC requirements. The 

new rule allows for deviations from controls 

to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to 

safety or as necessary to maintain the 

security of the facility. This ensures that the 

new rule will not unnecessarily restrict 

working hours and thereby create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

plant configuration, require new plant 

equipment to be installed, alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

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 TS 

restrictions on working hours for personnel 

who perform safety related functions. The TS 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. The 

proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to plant or alter the manner 

in which plant systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined. The safety analysis 

acceptance criteria are not affected by this 

change. The proposed change will not result 

in plant operation in a configuration outside 

the design basis. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 

Removal of plant-specific TS 

administrative requirements will not reduce 

a margin of safety because the requirements 

in 10 CFR part 26 are adequate to ensure that 

worker fatigue is managed. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the standards of 

10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, 

the NRC staff proposes to determine that 

the request for amendments involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: A. H. 

Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & 

Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton 

County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: April 21, 

2009 (TSC 07–05). 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Technical Specifications (TSs) and 

upgrade the Emergency Core Cooling 

System (ECCS) requirements to be more 

consistent with NUREG–1431, Revision 

3, ‘‘Standard Technical Specifications— 

Westinghouse Plants.’’ The upgrade 

revises Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 

and 2 TS Section 3/4.5.2, ‘‘ECCS 

Subsystems—Tavg Greater Than or Equal 

to 350 °F,’’ TS Section 3/4.5.3, ‘‘ECCS 

Subsystems—Tavg Less Than 350 °F,’’ 

and the corresponding surveillance 

requirements (SRs) that will resolve a 

non-confirming condition associated 

with SR 4.5.2.f. 

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. The proposed amendment does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

TVA’s proposed change is not considered 

to be a significant departure from the current 

requirements and is considered an upgrade 

for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant’s (SQN’s) 

emergency core cooling system (ECCS) 

technical specification (TS) requirements. 

The ECCS is qualified and designed to 

provide core cooling and negative reactivity 

to ensure the reactor core is protected in the 

event of a loss of coolant accident (LOCA), 

rod ejection accident, loss of secondary 

coolant accident, and steam generator tube 

rupture (SGTR). The proposed change does 

not alter qualification or design features 

associated with SQN’s ECCS. The probability 

of occurrence of an accident is not increased 

as the changes do not affect the system’s 

capability for performing ECCS operation 

during injection, cold leg recirculation, and 

hot leg recirculation. The proposed changes 

continue to ensure that SQN’s ECCS satisfies 

10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix A 

requirements. Therefore, the proposed 

amendment does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated. 

2. The proposed amendment does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

The possibility for a new or different kind 

of accident from any accident previously 

evaluated does not exist as a result of the 

proposed changes. The upgrade of SQN TSs 

to industry Improved Standard TS (ISTS) 

requirements provide an overall 

improvement and ensures that SQN’s ECCS 

is capable of performing the design functions 

under accident conditions. The system 

design associated with injection, cold leg 

recirculation, and hot leg recirculation, 

remain unchanged. Accordingly, the 

proposed change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. The proposed amendment does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The proposed upgrade of SQN’s ECCS TSs 

to the ISTS does not affect existing safety 

margins. The system requirements continue 

to require that ECCS components are 

operable for plant operation (Modes 1, 2, and 

3) and during plant shutdown (Mode 4). In 

addition, the proposed change does not 

increase the risk for an accident because no 

physical changes to the plant are being made 

and design features associated with ECCS 

continue to satisfy 10 CFR 50.46 

requirements. Accordingly, TVA concludes 

that the margin of safety has not been 

reduced. 

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: General 

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Notices 28581 

400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, 

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. 

NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce. 

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for A Hearing in 

connection with these actions was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) 

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items are available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

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

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

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209, 

(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket 

No. 50–305, Kewaunee Power Station 

(KPS), Kewaunee County, Wisconsin 

Date of amendment request: August 

14, 2008. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment changed Section 4.4.f.1 

of the Technical Specifications to 

require verification that the 36-inch 

containment purge and vent isolation 

valves are sealed closed when the 

reactor is at greater than Cold Shutdown 

Conditions. The previous Section 4.4.f.1 

required such verification when the 

reactor is critical. 

Date of issuance: June 1, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 206. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

43: The amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 9, 2008 (73 FR 

52414). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated June 1, 2009. 

Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for 

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., 120 

Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–247, Indian Point 

Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, 

Westchester County, New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

July 30, 2008, as supplemented 

February 2 and May 7, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) by allowing a onetime extension to TS 3.8.1, Required 

Action A.4, to support replacement of a 

cooling oil pump on the station 

auxiliary transformer. Specifically, the 

Completion Time to restore operability 

of the offsite circuit associated with the 

station auxiliary transformer would be 

extended from 72 hours to 144 hours. 

Date of issuance: May 27, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 260. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

26: The amendment revised the License 

and the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 27, 2008 (73 FR 

50649) 

The February 2 and May 7, 2009, 

supplements provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated May 27, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: 

September 18, 2008, as supplemented 

by letter dated February 26, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Action Statements 

‘a’ and ‘b’ of Technical Specification 3/ 

4.9.6, ‘‘Refueling Machine,’’ to clarify 

acceptability of placing a suspended 

fuel assembly or control element 

assembly within the reactor vessel in a 

safe condition while restoring the 

refueling machine operability. 

Date of issuance: June 4, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to the start of the fall 2009 

refueling outage (RF16) fuel movement. 

Amendment No.: 220. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

38: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 30, 2008 (73 FR 

79931). The supplemental letter dated 

February 26, 2009, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 4, 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: 

August 28, 2008, supplemented by letter 

dated January 19, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the Crystal River 

Unit 3 (CR–3) Improved Technical 

Specifications to implement the 

Technical Specifications Task Force 

Standard Technical Specification 

Change Traveler 449, Revision 4 

inspection requirements for the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

28582 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Notices 

replacement once through steam 

generators (OTSGs) that are being 

installed during the CR–3 fall 2009 

refueling outage. The replacement 

OTSGs differ from the existing OTSGs 

in that the tube material is Alloy 690 

thermally treated in the replacements 

versus Alloy 600 in the existing OTSGs. 

Additionally, this amendment removes 

inspection requirements that are 

designated for specific damage 

conditions in the existing OTSGs, 

remove tube repair techniques approved 

by the license amendment No. 233, 

dated May 16, 2007, for the existing 

OTSGs, and remove inspection and 

reporting requirements specific to those 

repair techniques. 

Date of issuance: May 29, 2009. 

Effective date: Date of issuance, to be 

implemented upon startup from 

Refueling Outage R16. 

Amendment No.: 234. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

72: Amendment revises the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 24, 2009 (74 FR 

8284). The supplemental letter was 

included in the initial proposed no 

significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated May 29, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Florida Power and Light Company, et 

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

Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie 

County, Florida 

Date of application for amendments: 

February 12, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments deleted those portions of 

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 Technical Specification Task 

Force (TSTF) Improved Standard 

Technical Specification Change Traveler 

TSTF–511, Revision 0, ‘‘Eliminate 

Working Hour Restrictions from TS 

5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 

CFR Part 26.’’ 

Date of Issuance: May 27, 2009. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 208 and 156. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: Amendments 

revised the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 24, 2009 (74 FR 

12393). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated May 27, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–331, Duane Arnold Energy 

Center, Linn County, Iowa 

Date of application for amendment: 

May 30, 2008, as supplemented by 

letters dated July 17, 2008, September 

10, 2008, and February 27, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

proposed amendment would revise 

Technical Specifications (TS) Table 

3.3.8.1–1, ‘‘Loss of Power 

Instrumentation,’’ specifically to change 

the maximum allowable voltage of the 

4.16-kV Emergency Bus Undervoltage 

function from less-than-or-equal-to 3899 

V to less-than-or-equal-to 3822 V. 

Date of issuance: May 15, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 273. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

49: The amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 21, 2008 (73 FR 

62565). The supplements dated July 17, 

2008, September 10, 2008, and February 

27, 2009 provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application, and did not change the 

Commission’s proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination. 

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. 

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: 

January 5, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments eliminate unnecessary 

reporting requirements in the Facility 

Operating Licenses (FOLs) and 

Technical Specifications (TSs). 

Specifically, the amendments delete: (1) 

Section 2.F of the FOL for Hope Creek 

Generating Station; (2) Section 2.I of the 

FOL for Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station, Unit No. 2; and (3) Technical 

Specification (TS) 6.9.3 for all three 

units. A notice of availability for this 

FOL and TS improvement using the 

consolidated line item improvement 

process was published by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission in the Federal 

Register on November 4, 2005 (70 FR 

67202). 

Date of issuance: June 2, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment Nos.: 178, 291 and 275. 

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: February 24, 2009 (74 FR 

8287). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 2, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, 

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 

and 3, Limestone County, Alabama 

Date of application for amendments: 

October 30, 2008, as supplemented by a 

letter dated November 20, 2008. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments (1) revised the 

frequency of Surveillance Requirement 

(SR) 3.1.3.2, notch testing of fully 

withdrawn control rod, from ‘‘7 days 

after the control rod is withdrawn and 

THERMAL POWER is greater than the 

LPSP [lower-power set-point] of RWM 

[rod worth minimizer]’’ to ‘‘31 days after 

the control rod is withdrawn and 

THERMAL POWER is greater than the 

LPSP of the RWM’’ and (2) revises 

Example 1.4–3 in Section 1.4 

‘‘Frequency’’ to clarify that the 1.25 

surveillance test interval extension in 

SR 3.0.2 is applicable to time periods 

discussed in NOTES in the 

‘‘SURVEILLANCE’’ column in addition 

to the time periods in the 

‘‘FREQUENCY’’ column. 

Date of issuance: May 29, 2009. 

Effective date: Date of issuance, to be 

implemented within 30 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 274, 301, and 260. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and DPR–68: 

Amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 24, 2009 (74 FR 

8288). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated May 29, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day 

of June 2009. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Notices 28583 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–13999 Filed 6–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0214] 

Notice of Availability and Opportunity 

for Comment on Interim Staff Guidance 

Regarding the Review of Research and 

Test Reactor License Renewal 

Applications 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Opportunity to 

Comment on Interim Staff Guidance 

(ISG) Regarding the Review of Research 

and Test Reactor License Renewal 

Applications. 

DATES: Interested parties are invited to 

submit comments on this interim staff 

guidance by July 16, 2009. Comments 

received after this date will be 

considered if practicable to do so, but 

only those comments received on or 

before the due date can be assured 

consideration. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Adams Jr., Division of Policy 

and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415– 

1127, e-mail alexander.adams@nrc.gov; 

or Marcus Voth, Division of Policy and 

Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone (301) 415–1210, e-mail 

marcus.voth@nrc.gov. 

ADDRESSES: Comments will be made 

available to the public in their entirety; 

personal information, such as your 

name, address, telephone number, email address, etc., will not be removed 

from your submission. You may submit 

comments by any one of the following 

methods: 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

on the Docket ID for this action: NRC– 

2009–0214. 

Mail or fax comments to: Michael T. 

Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking and Directives 

Branch, Office of Administration, Mail 

Stop: TWB–05–B01M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001 (Fax number: (301) 

492–3446). 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this notice using 

the following methods: 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

Documents related to this notice, 

including public comments, are 

accessible at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, by searching on 

docket ID: NRC–2009–0214. 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine, and have 

copied for a fee, publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 

File Area O–1F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, 

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The document, 

‘‘Interim Staff Guidance on Streamlined 

Review Process for License Renewal for 

Research Reactors’’ is available 

electronically under ADAMS Accession 

Number ML091420066. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

22, 2009 (74 FR 24049), the NRC 

published a notice of a public meeting 

(Announcement of a Proposed Process 

Change Regarding the Review of 

Research and Test Reactor License 

Renewal Applications) to be held on 

June 4, 2009, to discuss draft interim 

staff guidance. That same guidance is 

hereby being made available for review 

and written comment. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day 

of June 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Kathryn M. Brock, 

Chief, Research and Test Reactor Branch A, 

Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office 

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–14111 Filed 6–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the 

Subcommittee on Plant License 

Renewal; Notice of Meeting 

The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant 

License Renewal will hold a meeting on 

July 7, 2009, Room T–2B3, 11545 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to 

public attendance. 

The agenda for the subject meeting 

shall be as follows: 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009—8:30 a.m.– 

12 p.m. 

The Subcommittee will discuss the 

Prairie Island license renewal 

application and the associated Safety 

Evaluation Report with Open Items. The 

Subcommittee will hear presentations 

by and hold discussions with 

representatives of the NRC staff, Prairie 

Island Nuclear Generating Plant, and 

other interested persons regarding this 

matter. The Subcommittee will gather 

information, analyze relevant issues and 

facts, and formulate proposed positions 

and actions, as appropriate, for 

deliberation by the full Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to 

provide oral statements and/or written 

comments should notify the Designated 

Federal Official, Mr. Christopher Brown 

telephone (301) 415–7111 five days 

prior to the meeting, if possible, so that 

appropriate arrangements can be made. 

Electronic recordings will be permitted. 

Detailed procedures for the conduct of 

and participation in ACRS meetings 

were published in the Federal Register 

on October 6, 2008 (73 FR 58268– 

58269). 

Further information regarding this 

meeting can be obtained by contacting 

the Designated Federal Official between 

6:45 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. (ET). Persons 

planning to attend this meeting are 

urged to contact the above named 

individual at least two working days 

prior to the meeting to be advised of any 

potential changes to the agenda. 

Dated: June 10, 2009. 

Cayetano Santos, 

Chief, Reactor Safety Branch A, Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. E9–14112 Filed 6–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the 

ACRS Future Plant Designs 

Subcommittee 

Notice of Meeting 

The ACRS Subcommittee on Future 

Plant Designs will hold a meeting on 

July 7, 2009, Commission Hearing 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

The meeting will be open to public 

attendance. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES