31318 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission at (301) 492–3446. 

Requests for technical information 

about DG–1229 may be directed to the 

NRC contact, Aaron Szabo at (301) 415– 

1985 or e-mail to Aaron.Szabo@nrc.gov. 

Comments would be most helpful if 

received by September 9, 2009. 

Comments received after that date will 

be considered if it is practical to do so, 

but the NRC is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

Although a time limit is given, 

comments and suggestions in 

connection with items for inclusion in 

guides currently being developed or 

improvements in all published guides 

are encouraged at any time. 

Electronic copies of DG–1229 are 

available through the NRC’s public Web 

site under Draft Regulatory Guides in 

the ‘‘Regulatory Guides’’ collection of 

the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/. Electronic copies are also 

available in ADAMS (http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html), 

under Accession No. ML091420226. 

In addition, regulatory guides are 

available for inspection at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room (PDR) located at 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. The PDR’s mailing address is 

USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. The PDR can also be reached by 

telephone at (301) 415–4737 or (800) 

397–4205, by fax at (301) 415–3548, and 

by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Regulatory guides are not 

copyrighted, and Commission approval 

is not required to reproduce them. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day 

of June, 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Mark P. Orr, 

Acting Chief, Regulatory Guide Development 

Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of 

Nuclear Regulatory Research. 

[FR Doc. E9–15280 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0261] 

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 June 4, 2009 

to June 17, 2009. The last biweekly 

notice was published on June 16, 2009 

(74 FR 28575). 

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. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 31319 

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. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
31320 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 

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. 

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: May 21, 

2009. 

Description of amendments request: 

The amendments would remove the 

Table of Contents (TOC) from the 

Technical Specifications (TSs) and 

place them under licensee control. 

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? 

No. 

The proposed change is administrative and 

affects control of a document, the TOC, 

listing the specifications in the plant TSs. 

Transferring control from the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) to CCNPP 

[Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant] (the 

licensee) does not affect the operation, 

physical configuration, or function of plant 

equipment or systems. It does not impact the 

initiators or assumptions of analyzed events; 

nor does it impact the mitigation of accidents 

or transient events. The change has no 

impact on, and hence cannot increase, 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? 

No. 

The proposed change is administrative and 

does not alter the plant configuration, require 

installation or new equipment, alter 

assumptions about previously analyzed 

accidents, or impact the operation or 

function of plant equipment or systems. 

Therefore, this change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

No. 

The proposed change is administrative. 

The TOC is not required by regulation to be 

in the TS. Removal does not impact any 

safety assumptions or have the potential to 

reduce a margin of safety as described in the 

TS Bases. The change involves a transfer of 

control of the TOC from the NRC to CCNPP. 

No change in the technical content of the TS 

specifications is involved. Consequently, 

transfer from the NRC to CCNPP has no 

impact on the margin of safety, and hence 

cannot involve a significant reduction in the 

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. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC 

and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: May 5, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Technical Specification (TS) Section 

6.7.C to change requirements related to 

the schedule for performing the 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix J, Type A test. 

Specifically, the proposed change 

would change the TS from requiring the 

test ‘‘no later than April 2010’’ to ‘‘prior 

to startup from the April 2010 refuel 

outage.’’ 

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: 

1.0 Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. The change does not impact 

the function of any structure, system or 

component that affects the probability of an 

accident or that supports mitigation or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. The proposed change involves 

testing of Primary Containment but does not 

impact containment design or performance 

requirements. The proposed change ensures 

that the Type A test is performed prior to 

establishing Primary Containment following 

the April 2010 Refuel[ing] Outage. The 

proposed change does not affect reactor 

operations or accident analysis and there is 

no change to the radiological consequences 

of a previously analyzed accident. The 

operability requirements for accident 

mitigation systems remain consistent with 

the licensing and design basis. Therefore, the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2.0 Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. The proposed change does 

not involve any physical alteration of plant 

equipment and does not change the method 

by which any safety-related system performs 

its function. The proposed change involves 

the scheduling of the Type A test and does 

not alter the way the test is performed. Type 

A tests have been previously performed and 

are well within the design capability of 

station structures, systems or components. 

No new or different types of equipment will 

be permanently installed or operated. 

Operation of existing installed equipment is 

unchanged. The methods governing plant 

operation and testing remain consistent with 

current safety analysis assumptions. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3.0 Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. These changes do not 

change any existing design or operational 

requirements and do not adversely affect 

existing plant safety margins or the reliability 

of the equipment assumed to operate in the 

safety analysis. The proposed change affects 

the schedule for performing the Type A test 

and does not affect the way the test is 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 31321 

performed or margins for the existing 

Primary Containment. As such, there are no 

changes being made to safety analysis 

assumptions, safety limits or safety system 

settings that would adversely affect plant 

safety as a result of the proposed change. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. 

Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 

Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 

10601. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: John Boska. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: May 13, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change will modify the 

Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1.1, 

‘‘DNBR,’’ to revise the Departure from 

Nucleate Boiling Ratio (DNBR) safety 

limit based upon the Combustion 

Engineering (CE) 16 x 16 Next 

Generation Fuel (NGF) design and the 

associated Departure from Nucleate 

Boiling (DNB) correlations. 

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. 

No changes to plant equipment or 

operating procedures are required due to the 

change in the safety limit for DNBR. This 

change does not impact any of the accident 

initiators. The analyses of the reload are 

performed using NRC [U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission] approved 

methodologies to ensure the Specified 

Acceptable Fuel Design Limits (SAFDLs), of 

which DNBR is one, are not violated. The 

current DNBR setpoint continues to ensure 

automatic protective action is initiated to 

prevent exceeding the proposed DNBR safety 

limit. 

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. The proposed 

change supports the loading and use of Next 

Generation Fuel (NGF) at ANO–2 [Arkansas 

Nuclear One, Unit 2] as previously approved 

by the NRC. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The use the NRC-approved NGF WSSV–T 

correlation with the ABB–NV correlation to 

establish a new bounding DNBR safety limit 

of 1.23, preserves the DNBR margin of safety 

at a 95/95 level. The Core Protection 

Calculator (CPC) DNBR power adjustment 

addressable constant BERR1 is calculated 

based on the WSSV–T and ABB–NV CHF 

[critical heat flux] correlations such that a 

CPC trip at a DNBR of 1.25 using the CE–1 

CHF correlation assures that the bounding 

DNBR safety limit of 1.23 for the WSSV–T 

and ABB–NV CHF correlations will not be 

violated during normal operation and AOOs 

[anticipated operational occurrences] to at 

least a 95/95 probability/confidence level. 

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. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: May 15, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would modify 

Technical Specification (TS) 6.6.5, 

‘‘Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),’’ 

to minimize the number of U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved 

references consistent with the guidance 

provided in NRC Generic Letter 88–16, 

‘‘Removal of Cycle-Specific Parameter 

Limits from Technical Specifications,’’ 

dated October 3, 1988. This request also 

fulfills the commitment made in the 

licensee’s letter to the NRC dated March 

11, 2008, ‘‘Response to Request for 

Additional Information License 

Amendment Request to Revise 

Technical Specification 6.6.5, Core 

Operating Limits Report.’’ 

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 to the list of NRCapproved methodologies listed in TS 6.6.5 

are administrative in nature and have no 

impact on any plant configuration or system 

performance relied upon to mitigate the 

consequences of an accident. Changes to the 

calculated core operating limits may only be 

made using NRC-approved methodologies, 

must be consistent with all applicable safety 

analysis limits, and are controlled by the 10 

CFR 50.59 [Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations Section 50.59] process. 

The proposed change will minimize and 

clarify the listing of the NRC-approved 

methodologies that are currently being used 

in the ANO–2 [Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 

2] core designs and the determination of the 

operating limits for those cores. Assumptions 

used for accident initiators and/or safety 

analysis acceptance criteria are not altered by 

the proposed changes. 

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 to the list of topical 

reports used to determine the operating 

limits has no impact on any plant 

configurations or on system performance that 

is relied upon to mitigate the consequences 

of an accident. These changes are 

administrative in nature and do not result in 

a change to the physical plant or to the 

modes of operation defined in the facility 

license. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not amend the 

cycle specific parameter limits located in the 

COLR from the values presently required by 

the TS. The individual specifications 

continue to require operation of the plant 

within the bounds of the limits specified in 

COLR. The proposed change to the list of 

analytical methods referenced in the COLR is 

administrative in nature. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
31322 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 

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. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. 

Date of amendment request: May 22, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment will modify 

the Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3 (Waterford 3), Technical 

Specification (TS) 6.9.1.11 to minimize 

the number of references that reflect 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC)-approved methods used in 

establishing the Core Operating Limits 

Report (COLR) parameter limits, 

consistent with the guidance provided 

in NRC Generic Letter 88–16, ‘‘Removal 

of Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits from 

Technical Specifications,’’ dated 

October 3, 1988. 

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 changes to the list of NRCapproved methodologies listed in TS 

6.9.1.11.1 are administrative in nature and 

have no impact on any plant configuration or 

system performance relied upon to mitigate 

the consequences of an accident. Changes to 

the calculated core operating limits may only 

be made using NRC approved methodologies, 

must be consistent with all applicable safety 

analysis limits, and are controlled by the 10 

CFR 50.59 [Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations Section 50.59] process. 

The proposed changes will minimize and 

clarify the listing of the NRC-approved 

methodologies that are currently being used 

in the Waterford 3 core designs and the 

determination of the operating limits for 

those cores. 

Assumptions used for accident initiators 

and/or safety analysis acceptance criteria are 

not altered by the proposed changes. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the list of topical 

reports used to determine the operating 

limits has no impact on any plant 

configurations or on system performance that 

is relied upon to mitigate the consequences 

of an accident. These changes are 

administrative in nature and do not result in 

a change to the physical plant or to the 

modes of operation defined in the facility 

license. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not amend the 

cycle specific parameter limits located in the 

COLR from the values presently required by 

the TS. The individual specifications 

continue to require operation of the plant 

within the bounds of the limits specified in 

COLR. 

The proposed changes to the list of 

analytical methods referenced in the COLR 

are administrative in nature. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Terence A. 

Burke, Associate General Counsel— 

Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 

Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 

39213. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), 

Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois; 

Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad 

Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCPS), 

Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, 

Illinois 

Date of application for amendment 

request: April 7, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment deletes a no 

longer applicable footnote from the 

DNPS Technical Specifications (TS), 

corrects administrative errors in the 

titles of analytical methods, and deletes 

historical analytical methods no longer 

applicable in DNPS and QCPS TS. The 

proposed amendment also deletes a 

license condition from the DNPS and 

QCPS Renewed Facility Operating 

License (FOL). 

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 change involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

DNPS TS 3.4.5, ‘‘RCS Leakage Detection 

Instrumentation,’’ establishes the 

applicability and requirements for equipment 

used to quantify unidentified reactor coolant 

system operational leakage (i.e., the drywell 

floor drain sump monitoring system). The 

proposed change deletes a footnote that 

established a limited duration alternative to 

these requirements for DNPS Unit 3. 

The deletion of the footnote restores DNPS 

TS 3.4.5 requirements to the requirements 

prior to NRC approval of an emergency 

license amendment, which provided an 

alternative means to demonstrate TS 

compliance. In that the condition 

necessitating the footnote (i.e., a failed 

component) has been resolved (i.e., repair of 

the failed component), the footnote is no 

longer applicable. The proposed change will 

have no effect on any accident initiator or 

precursor previously evaluated and will not 

change the manner in which the plant is 

operated. Thus, the proposed change does 

not have any effect on the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

DNPS and QCNPS TS 5.6.5 ‘‘Core 

Operating Limits Report (COLR),’’ lists the 

NRC-approved analytical methods that are 

used at DNPS and QCNPS to determine core 

operating limits. The proposed changes will 

correct administrative errors in the titles of 

several analytical methods in DNPS and 

QCNPS TS 5.6.5.b. The proposed changes 

will also delete historical analytical methods 

from DNPS and QCNPS TS 5.6.5.b that are 

no longer applicable, as well as renumber the 

remaining analytical methods. 

The correction of administrative errors in 

the titles of analytical methods does not 

change the content or application of the 

methods. Similarly, the deletion of nonapplicable analytical methods does not affect 

the ability to accurately model core behavior, 

including the determination of core operating 

limits, for the fuel that is currently loaded in 

the DNPS and QCNPS reactors. Therefore, 

the proposed changes will have no effect on 

any accident initiator or precursor previously 

evaluated and will not change the manner in 

which the core is operated. Thus, the 

proposed changes do not have any effect on 

the probability of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

Finally, the proposed changes will delete 

a license condition in the DNPS Units 2 and 

3 and QCNPS Units 1 and 2 Facility 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 31323 

Operating Licenses (FOLs) that limits the 

maximum average fuel rod burnup to 60 

gigawattdays per metric ton of uranium 

(GWD/MTU) until a generic environmental 

assessment that supports an extended limit is 

approved. 

The proposed deletion of the license 

condition is justified by completion of 

generic environmental assessments for DNPS 

and QCNPS (i.e., as required by the license 

condition). As such, these license conditions 

are no longer required or applicable. 

Therefore, the proposed change will have no 

effect on any accident initiator or precursor 

previously evaluated and will not change the 

manner in which the core is operated. Thus, 

the proposed changes do not have any effect 

on the probability of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed changes to the DNPS TS 

3.4.5, DNPS and QCNPS TS 5.6.5.b, and the 

deletion of the Renewed FOL license 

conditions do not affect the ability to 

successfully respond to previously evaluated 

accidents and does not affect the radiological 

assumptions used in the evaluations for both 

DNPS and QCNPS. 

Thus, the proposed changes will have no 

effect on the type or amount of radiation 

released, and will have no effect on predicted 

offsite doses in the event of an accident. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the change create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to DNPS TS Section 

3.4.5, DNPS and QCNPS TS Section 5.6.5, 

and the proposed deletion of Renewed FOL 

license conditions do not affect the 

performance of any structure, system, or 

component credited with mitigating any 

accident previously evaluated. 

The deletion of the footnote from DNPS TS 

3.4.5 restores TS requirements to the 

requirements prior to NRC approval of an 

August 2008 emergency license amendment. 

The proposed deletion of the footnote does 

not affect the control parameters governing 

unit operation or the response of plant 

equipment to transient conditions. The 

proposed changes do not introduce any new 

modes of system operation or failure 

mechanisms. 

The NRC-approved analytical 

methodologies in TS 5.6.5.b are used to 

accurately model core behavior, including 

the determination of core operating limits, for 

the fuel that is currently loaded in the DNPS 

and QCNPS reactors. These methodologies 

do not affect the control parameters 

governing unit operation or the response of 

plant equipment to transient conditions. The 

proposed changes do not introduce any new 

modes of system operation or failure 

mechanisms. 

The existing Renewed FOL license 

condition limits fuel burnup until 

completion of a generic environmental 

assessment. In June 2004, the NRC issued 

NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants,’’ Supplement 16, ‘‘Quad 

Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2,’’ 

and Supplement 17, ‘‘Dresden Nuclear Power 

Station, Units 2 and 3.’’ Based on the 

completion and conclusions of these generic 

environmental assessments for DNPS and 

QCNPS, the license condition limiting fuel 

burnup for each unit has been satisfied. As 

such, these license conditions are no longer 

required or applicable. 

The proposed deletion of the license 

condition does not affect the control 

parameters governing unit operation or the 

response of plant equipment to transient 

conditions. The proposed changes do not 

introduce any new modes of system 

operation or failure mechanisms. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the change involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to DNPS TS 3.4.5, 

DNPS and QCNPS TS 5.6.5.b, and the DNPS 

and QCNPS Renewed FOLs (i.e., deletion of 

the fuel burnup license condition) will not 

affect the ability to quantify unidentified RCS 

leakage, accurately model core behavior for 

the currently loaded fuel, and ensure 

compliance with NRC-approved LTRs. 

As such, the proposed changes do not 

modify the safety limits or setpoints at which 

protective actions are initiated and do not 

change the requirements governing operation 

or availability of safety equipment assumed 

to operate to preserve the margin of safety. 

Therefore, the proposed changes provide an 

equivalent level of protection as that 

currently provided. 

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: Mr. Bradley J. 

Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 

Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, 

Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Russell A. Gibbs. 

Florida Power and Light Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey 

Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade 

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: April 13, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would delete those 

portions of Technical Specifications 

superseded by 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart 

I. This change is consistent with NRC 

approved Revision 0 to Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

‘‘Improved Standard Technical 

Specification Change Traveler, TSTF– 

511, Eliminate Working Hour 

Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to support 

Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.’’ 

The NRC staff issued a notice of 

availability of the model safety 

evaluation and model no significant 

hazards consideration (NSHC), using the 

consolidated line-item improvement 

process for referencing in license 

amendment applications in the Federal 

Register on December 30, 2008 (73 FR 

79923). The licensee affirmed the 

applicability of the following NSHC 

determination in its application dated 

April 13, 2009. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
31324 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 

effect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin 

of Safety 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. The 

proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to the plant or alter the 

manner in which plant systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined. The safety analysis 

acceptance criteria are not affected by this 

change. The proposed change will not result 

in plant operation in a configuration outside 

the design basis. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shut down the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 

Removal of plant-specific Technical 

Specification administrative requirements 

will not reduce a margin of safety because the 

requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 are adequate 

to ensure that worker fatigue is managed. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. 

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 

determine that the amendment request 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, 

Attorney, Florida Power & Light, P.O. 

Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408– 

0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce. 

FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–331, Duane Arnold Energy 

Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa 

Date of amendment requests: March 

4, 2009. 

Description of amendment requests: 

The proposed amendments would 

change the Technical Specification (TS) 

Section 5.5.12 (Primary Containment 

Leakage Rate Testing Program) and 

change TS Section 3.6.1.3 (Primary 

Containment Isolation Valves) to 

remove the repair criterion for Main 

Steamline Isolation Valves (MSIVs) that 

fail their as-found leakage rate 

acceptance criterion found in current 

Surveillance Requirement 3.6.1.3.9. 

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. 

This proposed change to TS 5.5.12 does 

not modify existing structures, systems or 

components (SSCs) of the plant, and it does 

not introduce new SSCs. It does not change 

assumptions, methodology, likelihood, or 

results of previously evaluated accidents in 

the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

[UFSAR]. It does not change operating 

procedures or administrative controls that 

affect the functions of SSCs. By excluding 

Main Steam pathway leakage from Type A, 

and Type B and C test results, this change 

will make the Primary Containment Leakage 

Rate Testing Program more closely aligned 

with the assumptions used in associated 

accident dose consequence analyses. 

The proposed change [to TS 3.6.1.3] to 

eliminate the repair criterion (i.e., as-left 

leakage limit) for MSIVs that fail their asfound leak test, does not change how the 

MSIVs function in response to any event, nor 

the likelihood of occurrence of any accident 

previously identified in the UFSAR. 

Repairing the MSIVs to an as-left leakage 

value, which can be higher than the currently 

specified value in TS that reliably assures the 

next as-found leakage test will be within 

limits is sufficient to ensure that the 

calculated dose consequences of any event 

involving MSIV leakage as an effluent 

pathway remain within analyzed limits. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 new or different accidents result from 

utilizing the proposed changes. The changes 

do not involve a physical alteration of the 

plant (i.e., no new or different type of 

equipment will be installed) or a change in 

the methods governing normal plant 

operation. The changes do not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis for 

MSIV performance. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do 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. 

Since Main Steam pathway leakage 

bypasses the containment and its filtration 

system (Standby Gas Treatment System) 

during a Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA), 

the effect on release to the environment is 

analyzed and specifically accounted for in 

the DAEC dose analysis methodology 

approved by Amendments 237 and 241. This 

proposed change to exclude Main Steam 

pathway leakage from Type A, and Type B 

and C test results does not change dose 

analysis values, and thus does not affect 

actual margin in the dose analysis. 

Similarly, removing the as-left repair 

criterion for MSIVs from the TS has no 

impact on the assumptions for MSIV leakage 

used in the accident analysis, which are 

based upon the as-found MSIV leakage limit, 

not the as-left leakage. As long as the as-left 

leakage value gives high confidence that the 

as-found leakage will remain within limits 

over the next operating cycle until the next 

as-found leak test is conducted, the 

assumptions of the dose consequence 

analyses are not adversely impacted and the 

previously calculated results remain 

bounding. 

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: Mr. R. E. 

Helfrich, Florida Power & Light 

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

FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James. 

FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–331, Duane Arnold Energy 

Center, Linn County, Iowa 

Date of amendment request: April 17, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

Operating License No. DPR–49 by 

changing ‘‘FPL Energy Duane Arnold, 

LLC’’ to ‘‘NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, 

LLC,’’ where appropriate, to reflect the 

renaming of FPL Energy Duane Arnold, 

LLC to NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, 

LLC. 

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. 

This request is for administrative changes 

only. No actual facility equipment or 

accident analyses will be affected by the 

proposed changes. Therefore, this request 

will have no impact on 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 31325 

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 will 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

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 will not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. R. E. 

Helfrich, Florida Power & Light 

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

FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James. 

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station, 

Nemaha County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: June 2, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would (1) 

delete Technical Specification (TS) 

surveillance requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 

and revise SR 3.1.3.3, (2) remove 

reference to SR 3.1.3.2 from Required 

Action A.3 of TS 3.1.3, ‘‘Control Rod 

OPERABILITY,’’ and (3) revise Example 

1.4–3 in TS Section 1.4, ‘‘Frequency,’’ to 

clarify the applicability of the 1.25 

surveillance test interval extension. The 

changes are in accordance with U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)- 

approved TS Task Force (TSTF) traveler 

TSTF–475, Revision 1, ‘‘Control Rod 

Notch Testing Frequency and SRM 

[Source Range Monitor] Insert Control 

Rod Action.’’ 

The NRC issued a ‘‘Notice of 

Availability of Model Application 

Concerning Technical Specification 

Improvement To Revise Control Rod 

Notch Surveillance Frequency, Clarify 

SRM Insert Control Rod Action, and 

Clarify Frequency Example’’ in the 

Federal Register on November 13, 2007 

(72 FR 63935). In its application dated 

June 2, 2009, the licensee affirmed the 

applicability of the model no significant 

hazards consideration (NSHC). 

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 generically 

implements TSTF–475, Revision 1, ‘‘Control 

Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM 

Insert Control Rod Action.’’ TSTF–475, 

Revision 1 modifies NUREG–1433 (BWR/4) 

and NUREG–1434 (BWR/6) STS. The 

changes: (1) Revise TS testing frequency for 

surveillance requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 in TS 

3.1.3, ‘‘Control Rod OPERABILITY’’, (2) 

clarify the requirement to fully insert all 

insertable control rods for the limiting 

condition for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, 

Required Action E.2, ‘‘Source Range 

Monitoring Instrumentation’’ (NUREG–1434 

only), and (3) revise Example 1.4–3 in 

Section 1.4 ‘‘Frequency’’ to clarify the 

applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test 

interval extension. The consequences of an 

accident after adopting TSTF–475, Revision 

1 are no different than the consequences of 

an accident prior to adoption. Therefore, 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 does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant (no new or 

different type of equipment will be installed) 

or a change in the methods governing normal 

plant operation. The proposed change will 

not introduce new failure modes or effects 

and will not, in the absence of other 

unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose 

consequences exceed the consequences of 

accidents previously analyzed. Thus, 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 

TSTF–475, Revision 1 will: (1) [Revise the 

TS SR 3.1.3.2 frequency in TS 3.1.3, ‘‘Control 

Rod OPERABILITY’’, (2) clarify the 

requirement to fully insert all insertable 

control rods for the limiting condition for 

operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, ‘‘Source Range 

Monitoring Instrumentation,’’ and (3)] revise 

Example 1.4–3 in Section 1.4 ‘‘Frequency’’ to 

clarify the applicability of the 1.25 

surveillance test interval extension. [The GE 

Nuclear Energy Report, ‘‘CRD Notching 

Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating 

Station,’’ dated November 2006, concludes 

that extending the control rod notch test 

interval from weekly to monthly is not 

expected to impact the reliability of the 

scram system and that the analysis supports 

the decision to change the surveillance 

frequency.] Therefore, the proposed changes 

in TSTF–475, Revision 1 are acceptable and 

do not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

analysis adopted by the licensee and, 

based upon 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 amendment involves NSHC. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. 

McClure, Nebraska Public Power 

District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, 

NE 68602–0499. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50–321, 50–366, 

50–348, 50–364, 50–424, 50–425, Joseph 

M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2 (FNP), Houston County, Alabama, 

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2 (HNP), Appling County, 

Georgia, Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units Nos. 1 and 2 (VEGP), Burke 

County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: May 19, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would delete 

those portions of technical 

specifications (TS) superseded by Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

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

is consistent with the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved 

Revision 0 to Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF–511, 

‘‘Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions 

from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance 

with 10 CFR Part 26.’’ The availability 

of this TS improvement was announced 

in the Federal Register on December 30, 

2008, (73 FR 79923) as part of the 

consolidated line item improvement 

process. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

SNC has reviewed the no significant 

hazards determination published on 

December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79925), as 

part of the CLIIP Notice of Availability. 

SNC has concluded that the 

determination presented in the notice is 

applicable to FNP, HNP, and VEGP. 

SNC has evaluated the proposed 

changes to the TS using the criteria in 

10 CFR 50.92 and has determined that 

the proposed changes do not involve a 

significant hazards consideration. An 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration is presented 

below: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
31326 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 

Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. 

Removal of the Technical Specification 

requirements will be performed concurrently 

with the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 

26, Subpart I, requirements. The proposed 

change does not impact the physical 

configuration or function of plant structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner 

in which SSCs are operated, maintained, 

modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue 

is not an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an 

assumption in the consequence mitigation of 

any accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Create the Possibility of a New or Different 

Kind of Accident From Any Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. 

Working hours will continue to be controlled 

in accordance with NRC requirements. The 

new rule allows for deviations from controls 

to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to 

safety or as necessary to maintain the 

security of the facility. This ensures that the 

new rule will not unnecessarily restrict 

working hours and thereby create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

plant configuration, require new plant 

equipment to be installed, alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

affect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin 

of Safety 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. The 

proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to the plant or alter the 

manner in which plant systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined. The safety analysis 

acceptance criteria are not affected by this 

change. The proposed change will not result 

in plant operation in a configuration outside 

the design basis. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 

Removal of plant-specific Technical 

Specification administrative requirements 

will not reduce a margin of safety because the 

requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 are adequate 

to ensure that worker fatigue is managed. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: FNP: M. 

Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and 

Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, 

Alabama 35201, HNP: Ernest L. Blake, 

Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and 

Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20037, VEGP: Mr. 

Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders, 

NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 

Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 

30308–2216. 

NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50 390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 

Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: June 5, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

correct an error by changing a logic 

connector from ‘‘OR’’ to ‘‘AND’’ 

between Technical Specification (TS) 

3.3.2, ‘‘ESFAS [Engineered Safety 

Feature Actuation System] 

Instrumentation,’’ Condition I, Actions 

I.2.1 and I.2.2. 

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. 

This proposed amendment corrects an 

identified error by only changing a logic 

connector between two TS actions. The 

change only restores the sequential nature of 

these required actions consistent with other 

similar TS actions where, if conditions 

warrant, the movement of the plant to lower 

modes is required (i.e., to Mode 3, to Mode 

4, etc.). In addition, this change does not alter 

the completion times for these actions. 

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. 

By correcting the logic connector between 

these two TS actions, this change only 

restores consistency with other similar TS 

actions where movement of the plant to 

lower modes is required. The change does 

not alter the expected outcome of the 

required actions nor does it change the 

completion times for these actions. 

Therefore, the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from those 

previously analyzed has not been created. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

By only correcting the logic connector 

between the required actions, the proposed 

change does not alter the expected outcome 

of the required actions nor does it change the 

completion times for these actions. 

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: General 

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, 

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. 

NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50 390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 

Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: June 5, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

change the technical specifications to 

revise the completion time (CT) from 1 

hour to 24 hours for Condition B of TS 

3.5.1, ‘‘Accumulators,’’ and its 

associated Bases. Condition B of TS 

3.5.1 currently specifies a CT of one 

hour to restore a reactor coolant system 

(RCS) accumulator to operable status 

when declared inoperable due to any 

reason except not being within the 

required boron concentration range. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration, adopted by the 

licensee is presented below: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 31327 

Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The basis for the accumulator limiting 

condition for operation (LCO), as discussed 

in Bases Section 3.5.1, is to ensure that a 

sufficient volume of borated water will be 

immediately forced into the core through 

each of the cold legs in the event the RCS 

pressure falls below the pressure of the 

accumulators, thereby providing the initial 

cooling mechanism during large RCS pipe 

ruptures. As described in Section 9.2 of the 

WCAP–15049, ‘‘Risk-Informed Evaluation of 

an Extension to Accumulator Completion 

Times,’’ evaluation, the proposed change will 

allow plant operation in a configuration 

outside the design basis for up to 24 hours, 

instead of 1 hour, before being required to 

begin shutdown. The impact of the increase 

in the accumulator CT on core damage 

frequency for all the cases evaluated in 

WCAP–15049 is within the acceptance limit 

of 1.0E–06/yr for a total plant core damage 

frequency (CDF) less than 1.0E–03/yr. The 

incremental conditional core damage 

probabilities calculated in WCAP–15049 for 

the accumulator CT increase meet the 

criterion of 5E–07 in Regulatory Guides (RG) 

1.174 and 1.177 for all cases except those that 

are based on design basis success criteria. As 

indicated in WCAP–15049, design basis 

accumulator success criteria are not 

considered necessary to mitigate large break 

loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) events, and 

were only included in the WCAP–15049 

evaluation as a worst case data point. In 

addition, WCAP–15049 states that the NRC 

has indicated that an incremental conditional 

core damage frequency (ICCDP) greater than 

5E–07 does not necessarily mean the change 

is unacceptable. 

The proposed technical specification 

change does not involve any hardware 

changes nor does it affect the probability of 

any event initiators. There will be no change 

to normal plant operating parameters, 

engineered safety feature (ESF) actuation 

setpoints, accident mitigation capabilities, 

accident analysis assumptions or inputs. 

Therefore, 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 Previously 

Evaluated 

No new accident scenarios, transient 

precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting 

single failures are introduced as a result of 

the proposed change. As described in Section 

9.1 of the WCAP–15049 evaluation, the plant 

design will not be changed with this 

proposed technical specification CT increase. 

All safety systems still function in the same 

manner and there is no additional reliance on 

additional systems or procedures. The 

proposed accumulator CT increase has a very 

small impact on core damage frequency. The 

WCAP–15049 evaluation demonstrates that 

the small increase in risk due to increasing 

the accumulator allowed outage time (AOT) 

is within the acceptance criteria provided in 

RGs 1.174 and 1.177. No new accidents or 

transients can be introduced with the 

requested change and the likelihood of an 

accident or transient is not impacted. 

The malfunction of safety related 

equipment, assumed to be operable in the 

accident analyses, would not be caused as a 

result of the proposed technical specification 

change. No new failure mode has been 

created and no new equipment performance 

burdens are imposed. 

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 involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

There will be no change to the departure 

from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) 

correlation limit, the design DNBR limits, or 

the safety analysis DNBR limits. 

The basis for the accumulator LCO, as 

discussed in Bases Section 3.5.1, is to ensure 

that a sufficient volume of borated water will 

be immediately forced into the core through 

each of the cold legs in the event the RCS 

pressure falls below the pressure of the 

accumulators, thereby providing the initial 

cooling mechanism during large RCS pipe 

ruptures. As described in Section 9.2 of the 

WCAP–15049 evaluation, the proposed 

change will allow plant operation in a 

configuration outside the design basis for up 

to 24 hours, instead of 1 hour, before being 

required to begin shutdown. The impact of 

this on plant risk was evaluated and found 

to be very small. That is, increasing the time 

the accumulators will be unavailable to 

respond to a large LOCA event, assuming 

accumulators are needed to mitigate the 

design basis event, has a very small impact 

on plant risk. Since the frequency of a design 

basis large LOCA (a large LOCA with loss of 

offsite power) would be significantly lower 

than the large LOCA frequency of the WCAP– 

15049 evaluation, the impact of increasing 

the accumulator CT from 1 hour to 24 hours 

on plant risk due to a design basis large 

LOCA would be significantly less than the 

plant risk increase presented in the WCAP– 

15049 evaluation. 

Therefore, this 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: General 

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, 

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. 

NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50 390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 

Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: June 5, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

provide alternatives for valve position 

verification in various Required Actions 

and Surveillance Requirements in 

Technical Specification 3.6.3, 

‘‘Containment Isolation Valves.’’ 

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 proposed amendment will revise the 

position verification requirements for manual 

containment isolation devices that are 

locked, sealed, or otherwise secured in the 

closed position. Revising the verification 

requirements will not introduce any physical 

changes or result in the equipment being 

operated in a new or different manner. All 

systems, structures, and components 

previously required for mitigation of a 

transient remain capable of performing their 

designed functions. Furthermore, although 

the proposed change would revise the 

position verification requirements, no 

physical change is being made to the 

assumed position of the valves for accident 

analysis. 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 new accident scenarios or failure 

mechanisms are introduced as a result of this 

proposed change. The proposed amendment 

would revise the position verification 

requirements but not alter any valve 

positions. With no changes to the plant 

lineup, no new or different accidents are 

possible. 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 amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Changes to the position verification 

requirements of normally closed manual 

containment isolation valves that are locked, 

sealed, or otherwise secured do not change 

the position/status of these valves. The 

proposed amendment does not impact the 

ability of these valves to perform their design 

function of controlling containment leakage 

rates during design basis radiological 

accidents. Therefore, the proposed change 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
31328 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 

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: General 

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, 

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. 

NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan. 

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. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC 

and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of application for amendment: 

February 12, 2008, as supplemented by 

letters dated August 28, 2008, 

September 15, 2008, October 17, 2008, 

December 15, 2008, December 18, 2008 

(two letters), April 9, 2009, and May 20, 

2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specification (TS) Sections 2.1, 

‘‘Limiting Safety System Setting,’’ 3.1, 

‘‘Reactor Protection System,’’ 3.2, 

‘‘Protective Instrument Systems,’’ 

associated Surveillance Requirements, 

and other TS with similar requirements 

as these instrumentation TS sections. 

Date of Issuance: June 12, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 180 days. 

Amendment No.: 236. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

28: Amendment revised the License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 22, 2008 (73 FR 21659). 

The supplemental letters dated 

August 28, 2008, September 15, 2008, 

October 17, 2008, December 15, 2008, 

December 18, 2008 (two letters), April 9, 

2009, and May 20, 2009, the application 

as originally noticed, and did not 

change the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination. The Commission’s 

related evaluation of this amendment is 

contained in a Safety Evaluation dated 

June 12, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC 

and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of application for amendment: 

September 22, 2008. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

proposed amendment would revise the 

Technical Specification (TS) to remove 

the requirement to perform quarterly 

closure time testing of the Main Steam 

Isolation Valves (MSIVs) by deleting TS 

Surveillance Requirement 4.7.D.1.c. 

Operability testing of the MSIVs will 

continue to be required by the Vermont 

Yankee Inservice Test Program and the 

safety functions of the MSIVs will 

continue to be contained in the Vermont 

Yankee Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Report and Vermont Yankee Technical 

Requirements Manual. 

Date of Issuance: June 17, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 237. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

28: Amendment revised the License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR 

65692). 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 

South Carolina Public Service 

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

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, 

Fairfield County, South Carolina 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 2, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment deletes those portions of 

Technical Specifications superseded by 

10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I. This change 

is consistent with NRC-approved 

Revision 0 to Technical Specification 

Task Force Traveler, TSTF–511, 

‘‘Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions 

from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance 

with 10 CFR Part 26,’’ as announced in 

the Federal Register on December 30, 

2008 (73 FR 79923) as part of the 

consolidated line item improvement 

process. 

Date of issuance: June 9, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented by 

October 1, 2009. 

Amendment No.: 181. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–12: Amendment revises the 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 24, 2009 (74 FR 12395). 

The Commission’s related evaluation of 

the amendment is contained in a Safety 

Evaluation dated June 9, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton 

County, Tennessee 

Date of application for amendments: 

October 23, 2008. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Sequoyah 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 31329 

Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 and 2 

Technical Specifications (TSs) by a 

partial adoption of Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler, TSTF–491, Revision 2, 

‘‘Removal of Main Steam and Feedwater 

Valve Isolation Times.’’ The 

amendments only revised TS 3.7.1.5, 

‘‘Main Steam Line Isolation Valves,’’ by 

relocating the main steam isolation 

valve closure time from Surveillance 

Requirement 4.7.1.5.1 to the Bases. The 

amendments deviated from TSTF–491 

in that the current SQN TS 3.7.1.6 

‘‘Main Feedwater Isolation, Regulating, 

and Bypass Valves,’’ and associated 

surveillance requirements do not 

include the main feedwater valve 

closure times, and thus, TSTF–491 

changes to TS 3.7.1.6 were not applied 

to the SQN TSs. 

Date of issuance: June 12, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 324 and 316. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

77 and DPR–79: Amendments revised 

the technical specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 13, 2009 (74 FR 1716). 

The Commission’s related evaluation of 

the amendments is contained in a Safety 

Evaluation dated June 12, 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, 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, 

and electronically on the Internet at the 

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

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

are problems in accessing the document, 

contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 

(800) 397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by 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 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
31330 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 

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. 

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. 

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/site-help/e-submittals/ 

install-viewer.html. Information about 

applying for a digital ID certificate is 

available on NRC’s public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals/apply-certificates.html. 

Once a petitioner/requestor has 

obtained a digital ID certificate, had a 

docket created, and downloaded the EIE 

viewer, it can then submit a request for 

hearing or petition for leave to 

intervene. Submissions should be in 

Portable Document Format (PDF) in 

accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/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, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 31331 

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. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick 

Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, 

New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

June 4, 2009, as supplemented by letter 

dated June 6, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment authorizes a temporary onetime change to Technical Specification 

(TS) 3.8.1 Required Action B.4 

Completion Time. The amendment 

would add a note allowing a 

Completion Time of ‘‘17 days’’, on a 

temporary one-time basis. This one-time 

allowance will expire at 10:15 a.m. on 

June 12, 2009. 

Date of issuance: June 8, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

immediately. 

Amendment No.: 294. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

59: The amendment revised the License 

and the Technical Specifications. 

Public comments requested as to the 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration (NSHC): No. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment, finding of emergency 

circumstances, State consultation, and 

final NSHC determination are contained 

in a safety evaluation dated June 8, 

2009. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. 

Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 

Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 

10601. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: John P. 

Boska. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day 

of June 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–15117 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Federal Register Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

DATES: Weeks of June 29, July 6, 13, 20, 

27, August 3, 2009. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

Week of June 29, 2009 

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 

1 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public 

Meeting) (Tentative). 

U.S. Department of Energy (HighLevel Waste Repository); Appeals of 

First Prehearing Conference Order 

(Tentative). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

1:05 p.m. Discussion/Possible Vote 

on Final Rule—Update to Waste 

Confidence Decision (Public Meeting) 

(Tentative) (Contact: Rochelle Bavol, 

301–415–1651). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

Week of July 6, 2009—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of July 6, 2009. 

Week of July 13, 2009—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of July 13, 2009. 

Week of July 20, 2009—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of July 20, 2009. 

Week of July 27, 2009—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of July 27, 2009. 

Week of August 3, 2009—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of August 3, 2009. 

* * * * * 

* The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. To verify the status of meetings, 

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. 

Contact person for more information: 

Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415–1651. 

* * * * * 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policymaking/schedule.html. 

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g. 

braille, large print), please notify the 

NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, 

Rohn Brown, at 301–492–2279, TDD: 

301–415–2100, or by e-mail at 

rohn.brown@nrc.gov. Determinations on 

requests for reasonable accommodation 

will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

* * * * * 

This notice is distributed 

electronically to subscribers. If you no 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6