34044 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices 

On February 17, 2009, President 

Obama signed into law the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

commonly known as the economic 

stimulus package. The new provision of 

the Trade Act went into effect on May 

18, 2009 and applies to petitions filed 

on or after that date. The petition at 

hand was filed on March 30, 2009, and 

therefore, cannot be considered under 

the new provision. 

The workers are encouraged to file a 

new petition, if the workers wish to be 

considered under the New TAA 

Program. 

Conclusion 

After review of the application and 

investigative findings, I conclude that 

there has been no error or 

misinterpretation of the law or of the 

facts which would justify 

reconsideration of the Department of 

Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the 

application is denied. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 22nd day 

of June, 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–16631 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–65,433] 

American Racing Equipment, LLC, 

Denver, CO; Notice of Negative 

Determination on Reconsideration 

On May 11, 2009, the Department 

issued an Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration for the workers and 

former workers of the subject firm. The 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register on June 16, 2009 (74 FR 28552). 

The initial investigation resulted in a 

negative determination based on the 

finding that imports of two-piece 

automotive wheels did not contribute 

importantly to worker separations at the 

subject firm and no shift of production 

to a foreign source occurred. 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioner alleged that the workers of the 

subject firm also supported production 

of cast, one piece wheels. The petitioner 

alleged that the subject firm shifted 

production of the cast, one piece wheels 

abroad and that there was an increase in 

imports of the cast, one piece wheels. 

The Department of Labor contacted a 

company official to verify this 

information. The company official 

stated that the workers of the subject 

firm distributed the cast, one piece 

wheels which were mostly 

manufactured in China. The company 

official also stated that the subject firm 

ceased production of the cast, one piece 

wheels long before 2008 and that no 

cast, one piece wheels were 

manufactured by American Racing 

Equipment, LLC during the relevant 

period. 

When assessing eligibility for Trade 

Adjustment Assistance, the Department 

exclusively considers production, shifts 

in production and import impact during 

the relevant time period (one year prior 

to the date of the petition). Therefore, 

events occurring prior to February 26, 

2008, are outside of the relevant period 

and are not relevant in this 

investigation. The investigation revealed 

that workers of the subject firm did not 

manufacture the cast, one piece wheels 

and did not support production of the 

cast, one piece wheels at any affiliated 

domestic facility during the relevant 

period. 

To support the allegation of a shift in 

production to China the petitioner 

attached an e-mail correspondence from 

an American Racing Equipment, LLC 

employee dated March 13, 2008. 

Upon further analysis it was revealed 

that the document contains a review of 

the subject firm’s sales for the month of 

February 2008. The letter also refers to 

the negative impact of bad winter 

conditions in China to the Chinese 

production which was the reason of 

reduced sales at the subject firm in 

February 2008. 

The investigation revealed that the 

above mentioned document does not 

contain any information which supports 

the petitioner allegation regarding 

production of the cast, one piece wheels 

by workers of the subject firm or a shift 

in production of the cast, one piece 

wheels during the relevant period. 

The petitioner also attached a letter 

dated June 29, 2007 signed by a 

company official. 

Documents referring to the events 

which took place in 2007 are outside of 

the relevant time period and cannot be 

considered in this investigation. 

The petitioner also attached a 

spreadsheet named ‘‘Salesperson Pace 

Report—Daily Needs’’. The Department 

reviewed the document and determined 

that it does not contain any additional 

valid information as it relates to this 

determination. 

Conclusion 

After reconsideration, I affirm the 

original notice of negative 

determination of eligibility to apply for 

worker adjustment assistance for 

workers and former workers of 

American Racing Equipment, LLC, 

Denver, Colorado. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

June 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–16630 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0306] 

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) 

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 18, 

2009, to July 1, 2009. The last biweekly 

notice was published on June 30, 2009 

(74 FR 31318). 

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 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Section 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices 34045 

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 (RDB), 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. Written comments may also be 

faxed to the RDB at 301–492–3446. 

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’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 O1F21, 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 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 

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/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/requestor 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, 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 

an exemption in accordance with the 

procedures described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 

(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the 

petitioner/requestor should 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34046 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices 

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 using 

the agency’s adjudicatory e-filing system 

may seek assistance through the 

‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the NRC 

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html or by calling the 

NRC Meta-System Help Desk, which is 

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

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. The 

Meta-System Help Desk can be 

contacted by telephone at 1–866–672– 

7640 or by e-mail at 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First-class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. 

Non-timely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission, the presiding officer, or 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

that the request and/or petition 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 NBC’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 

submissions. 

For further details with respect to this 

license amendment application, 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 

O1F21, 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. Persons who do not have 

access to ADAMS or who encounter 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS should contact the 

NRC 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 13, 

2009. 

Description of amendments request: 

The amendment would incorporate 

Technical Specification Task Force 

Traveler (TSTF) 479–A, Revision 0, 

‘‘Changes to Reflect Revision of 10 CFR 

50.55a,’’ and TSTF 497–A, Revision 0, 

‘‘Limit Inservice Testing Program SR 

3.0.2 Application to Frequencies of 2 

Years or Less,’’ approved by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) on 

December 6, 2005 and October 4, 2006 

respectively. The proposed changes 

revise the Improved Standard Technical 

Specification administrative controls of 

the Inservice Testing Program to be 

consistent with the requirements of 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations Section 50.55a(f)(4) for 

pumps and valves classified as 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, Class 2, 

and Class 3. 

The proposed change replaces 

references to ASME Section XI of the 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code with 

references to the ASME Code for 

Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear 

Power Plants within Technical 

Specification (TS) 5.5.8. In TS 5.5.8.b, 

the proposed change applies the 

extension of Surveillance Requirement 

3.0.2 to other normal and accelerated 

inservice testing frequencies of 2 years 

or less that were not included in the 

frequencies of the table listed in TS 

5.5.8.a. 

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. Operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed change will replace, within 

TS 5.5.8, references to Section XI of ASME 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, with 

references to the ASME Code for Operation 

and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants 

(OM Code). In addition the proposed change 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices 34047 

adds words to TS 5.5.8.b which applies the 

extension allowance of the Surveillance 

Requirement 3.0.2 to other normal and 

accelerated inservice testing frequencies of 

two years or less that were not included in 

the frequencies of the table listed in TS 

5.5.8.a. 

The proposed change is administrative, 

does not affect any accident initiators, does 

not affect the ability to successfully respond 

to previously evaluated accidents and does 

not affect radiological assumptions used in 

the evaluations. Thus, operation of the 

facility in accordance with the proposed 

change will not involve an increase in the 

probability or the consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed change will replace, within 

TS 5.5.8 references to Section XI of ASME 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code with 

references to the ASME OM Code. In 

addition the proposed change also adds 

words to TS 5.5.8.b which applies the 

extension allowance of Surveillance 

Requirement 3.0.2 to other normal and 

accelerated inservice testing frequencies of 

two years or less that were not included in 

the frequencies of the table listed in TS 

5.5.8.a. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

modification to the physical configuration of 

the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be 

installed) or involve a change in the methods 

governing normal plant operation. The 

proposed change will not impose any new or 

different requirements or introduce a new 

accident initiator, accident precursor, or 

malfunction mechanism. Additionally there 

is no change in the types or increase in the 

amounts of any effluent that may be released 

offsite and there is no increase in individual 

or cumulative occupational exposure. 

Therefore the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The proposed change will replace, within 

TS 5.5.8 references to Section XI of ASME 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code with 

references to the ASME OM Code. In 

addition the proposed change also adds 

words to TS 5.5.8.b which applies the 

extension allowance of Surveillance 

Requirement 3.0.2 to other normal and 

accelerated inservice testing frequencies of 

two years or less that were not included in 

the frequencies of the table listed in TS 

5.5.8.a. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

modification to the physical configuration of 

the operating units or change the methods 

governing normal plant operation. The 

proposed change incorporates revisions to 

the ASME Code that results in a net 

improvement in the measures for testing 

pumps and valves. The safety functions of 

the applicable pumps and valves will be 

maintained. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

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: Richard 

Guzman. 

DTE Energy, Inc., Docket No. 50–16, 

Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 

1, Monroe County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: March 

25, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would add a 

license condition incorporating a site 

license termination plan (LTP) for the 

Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 

1 (Fermi-1). The proposed license 

condition includes LTP change control 

criteria specifying when changes to the 

LTP require prior Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission approval. Since Fermi-1 is 

completely within the boundary of Unit 

2, the Fermi-1 property would become 

part of Unit 2 site upon successful 

completion of license termination 

activities. 

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. Will operation of the facility in 

accordance with this proposed change 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated? 

No. The change allows for the approval of 

the LTP and provides the criteria for when 

changes to the LTP require prior NRC 

approval. This change does not affect 

possible initiating events for the three 

postulated accidents previously evaluated in 

the Fermi-1 Safety Analysis Report (SAR), as 

updated, or alter the configuration or 

operation of the facility. Safety limits, 

limiting safety system settings, and limiting 

control systems are no longer applicable to 

Fermi-1 in the permanently defueled 

condition, and are therefore not considered 

further. The proposed change does not affect 

the boundaries used to evaluate compliance 

with liquid or gaseous effluent limits, and 

has no impact on plant operations. 

Therefore, the proposed license 

amendment does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

probability of a new or different accident 

from any accident previously evaluated? 

No. The safety analysis for the facility 

remains accurate as described in the Fermi1 SAR, as updated, Section 8.4, Postulated 

Radiological Accidents. There are sections of 

the LTP that make reference to the 

decommissioning activities still remaining 

(e.g., removal of large components, 

decontamination, etc.), however these 

activities are performed in accordance with 

approved Fermi-1 work authorizations and 

undergo 10 CFR 50.59 screening prior to 

initiation. The plant conditions for which the 

postulated accidents have been evaluated are 

still valid and no new accident scenarios, 

failure mechanisms, or single failures are 

introduced by this amendment. The system 

operating procedures are not affected. 

Therefore, the proposed changes will not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

No. There are no changes to the design or 

operation of the facility resulting from this 

amendment. The proposed change does not 

affect the boundaries used to evaluate 

compliance with liquid or gaseous effluent 

limits, and has no impact on plant shutdown 

operations. Accordingly, neither the 

postulated accident assumptions in the 

Fermi-1 SAR, as updated, nor the basis of the 

Technical Specifications are affected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

Based upon the reasoning presented 

above it appears that the three standards 

of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. 

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 

determine that the amendment request 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: David Pettinari. 

NRC Branch Chief: Andrew Persinko. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 

50–382, Waterford Steam Electric 

Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, 

Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: June 3, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change will modify 

Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1.1 to 

account for the Combustion Engineering 

(CE) 16 x 16 Next Generation Fuel 

(NGF) and different U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewed 

and approved Departure from Nucleate 

Boiling (DNB) correlations. These new 

correlations will be implemented in the 

safety analyses for the next fuel cycle of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34048 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices 

operation consistent with NRCapproved methodologies. 

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 

[Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio]. This 

change does not impact any of the accident 

initiators. The analyses of the reload are 

performed using NRC-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 and 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 involve 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 Waterford 3 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 of the NRC-approved NGF WSSV– 

T correlation with the ABB–NV correlation to 

establish a new bounding DNBR safety limit 

of 1.24, 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 1.26 using the CE–1 

CHF correlation ensures that the bounding 

DNBR safety limit of 1.24 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 Counsel— 

Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 

Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 

39213. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point Beach 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of 

Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, 

Wisconsin 

Date of amendment request: April 17, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would amend the 

Renewed Facility Operating Licenses 

DPR–24 and DPR–27 for Point Beach 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

respectively, to reflect a change in the 

legal name of the Licensee from ‘‘FPL 

Energy Point Beach, LLC’’ to ‘‘NextEra 

Energy Point Beach, 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. 

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: Antonio 

Fernandez, Esquire, Senior Attorney, 

FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 

14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50–328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 

2, Hamilton County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: May 21, 

2009 (TSC 09–02). 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Technical Specifications (TSs) 

Section 6.8.4.k, ‘‘Steam Generator 

Program,’’ for Unit 2 including 

associated TSs Bases 3/4.4.5, ‘‘Steam 

Generator (SG) Tube Integrity,’’ to allow 

the implementation of SG tubing 

alternate repair criteria for axial 

indications in the Westinghouse Electric 

Company explosive tube expansion 

region below the top of the tubesheet 

and specify the W* distance for the SG 

cold legs. 

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. 

Of the various accidents previously 

evaluated, the proposed changes only affects 

the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) 

event evaluation and the postulated steam 

line break (SLB) accident evaluation. Loss-ofcoolant accident (LOCA) conditions cause a 

compressive axial load to act on the tube. 

Therefore, since the LOCA tends to force the 

tube into the tubesheet rather than pull it out, 

it is not a factor in this amendment request. 

Another faulted load consideration is a safe 

shutdown earthquake (SSE); however, the 

seismic analysis of Westinghouse 51 Series 

steam generators (SGs) has shown that axial 

loading of the tubes is negligible during an 

SSE. 

TVA’s [Tennessee Valley Authority’s] 

amendment request allows taking credit for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices 34049 

how the tubesheet enhances the tube 

integrity in the Westinghouse Electric 

Company explosive tube expansion 

(WEXTEX) region by precluding tube 

deformation beyond its initial expanded 

outside diameter. For the SGTR and SLB 

events, the required structural margins of the 

SG tubes will be maintained due to the 

presence of the tubesheet. Tube rupture is 

precluded for axial cracks in the WEXTEX 

region due to the constraint provided by the 

tubesheet. Therefore, the normal operating 

3DP margin and the postulated accident 

1.43DP margin against burst are maintained. 

The W* length supplies the necessary 

resistive force to preclude pullout loads 

under both normal operating and accident 

conditions. The contact pressure results from 

the WEXTEX process, thermal expansion 

mismatch between the tube and tubesheet 

and from the differential pressure between 

the primary and secondary side. Therefore, 

the proposed change results in no significant 

increase in the probability or the occurrence 

of an SGTR or SLB accident. 

The proposed changes do not affect other 

systems, structures, components or 

operational features. Therefore, based on the 

above evaluation, the proposed changes do 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

The consequences of an SGTR event are 

primarily affected by the primary-tosecondary flow rate and the time duration of 

the primary-to-secondary flow during the 

event. Primary-to-secondary flow rate 

through a postulated ruptured tube (i.e., 

complete severance of a single SG tube) is not 

affected by the proposed change since the 

flow rate is based on the inside diameter of 

a SG tube and the pressure differential. 

TVA’s amendment request does not change 

either of these. The duration of primary-tosecondary leakage is based on the time 

required for an operator to determine that an 

SGTR has occurred, the time to identify and 

isolate the faulty SG, and ensure termination 

of radioactive release to the atmosphere from 

the faulty SG. TVA’s amendment request 

does not affect the duration of the primaryto-secondary leakage because it does not 

change the control room indicators with 

which an operator would determine that an 

SGTR has occurred. The consequences of an 

SGTR are secondarily affected by primary-tosecondary leakage, which could occur due to 

axial cracks remaining in service in the 

WEXTEX region in a non-faulted SG. During 

a SGTR, the primary-to-secondary differential 

pressure is less than or equal to the normal 

operating differential pressure; therefore, the 

primary-to-secondary leakage due to axial 

cracks in the WEXTEX region of a nonfaulted SG during a SGTR would be less than 

or equal to the primary-to-secondary leakage 

experienced during normal operation. 

Primary-to-secondary leakage is considered 

in the calculation determining the 

consequences of a SGTR and the value is 

bounding. 

The postulated SLB has the greatest 

primary-to-secondary pressure differential, 

and therefore could experience the greatest 

primary-to-secondary leakage. TVA’s 

amendment request allows axial cracks to 

remain in service in the WEXTEX region, 

which have the possibility of primary-tosecondary leakage during a postulated SLB 

accident. However, the primary-to-secondary 

leakage would be limited by the amount the 

crack face can open (compared to a similar 

free-span axial crack) and by the restriction 

resulting from the tube to tubesheet contact 

pressure which create a restricted leakage 

path from the upper tip of the crack to the 

top of the WEXTEX expansion. TVA’s 

amendment request requires the aggregate 

leakage, (i.e., the combined leakage for the 

tubes with axial cracks in the WEXTEX 

region) plus the combined leakage developed 

by other alternate repair criteria (ARC), to 

remain below the maximum allowable SLB 

primary-to-secondary leakage rate limit such 

that the doses are maintained to less than a 

fraction of the 10 CFR 100 limits and also 

less than the General Design Criteria (GDC)– 

19 limits. 

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. 

TVA’s amendment request does not 

introduce any physical changes to the 

Sequoyah Unit 2 SGs. TVA’s amendment 

request takes credit for how the tubesheet 

enhances the SG tube integrity in the 

WEXTEX region by precluding tube 

deformation beyond its initial expanded 

outside diameter and allows axial cracks in 

the WEXTEX region to remain in service if 

prescribed criteria are met. Removal of the 

existing primary water stress corrosion 

cracking (PWSCC) axial at dented tube 

support plate ARC incorporates the more 

conservative TS limit for SG tube plugging. 

A failure to meet SG tube integrity results in 

an SGTR. Because the circumferential cracks 

detected within the WEXTEX region are 

required to be plugged, it is highly unlikely 

that a W* tube would fail as a result of a 

circumferential defect. Therefore, a tube 

severance which would strike neighboring 

tubes and create a multiple tube rupture is 

not credible. 

The proposed change does not introduce 

any new equipment or any change to existing 

equipment. No new effects on existing 

equipment are created. 

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 amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The amendment request maintains the 

structural margins of the SG tubes for both 

normal and accident conditions that are 

required by Regulatory Guide 1.121. 

For primarily axially oriented cracking 

located within the tubesheet, tube burst is 

precluded because of the presence of the 

tubesheet. WCAP–14797 defines a length, 

W*, of degradation free expanded tubing that 

provides the necessary resistance to tube 

pullout due to the pressure induced forces 

(with applicable safety factor applied). 

Application of the W* criteria will preclude 

unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage 

during all plant conditions. The methodology 

for determining leakage provides for large 

margins between calculated and actual 

leakage values in the W* criteria. 

Plugging of the SG tubes reduces the 

reactor coolant flow margin for core cooling. 

Implementation of the proposed changes is 

expected to result in plugging of fewer tubes 

than with the current criteria. Thus, 

implementation of the proposed changes will 

maintain the margin of flow that may have 

otherwise been reduced by tube plugging. 

It is concluded that the proposed changes 

do not result in a significant reduction of 

margin with respect to plant safety as defined 

in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

or TSs. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. 

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 

determine that the amendment request 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: General 

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, 

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. 

NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry 

Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry 

County, Virginia 

Date of amendment request: April 13, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change revises Technical 

Specifications (TS) Table 3.7–1 Operator 

Action 3.b and provides direction if the 

less-than-required-minimum-operablechannels-condition for the nuclear flux 

intermediate range occurs between 7% 

and 11% of rated power. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed license amendment 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated? 

No. The proposed change revises TS Table 

3.7–1 Operator Action 3.b and provides 

direction if the less-than-required-minimumoperable-channels-condition for the nuclear 

flux intermediate range occurs between 7% 

and 11% of rated power. Required action 

between 7% and 11% of rated power is 

currently not addressed in the Operator 

Action 3.b. The proposed TS change does not 

involve a physical change to any structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs) at Surry 

Power Station; nor does it change any of the 

previously evaluated accidents in the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34050 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR). Thus, this change does not involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed license amendment 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated? 

No. The proposed change revises TS Table 

3.7–1 Operator Action 3.b, and provides 

required action between 7% and 11% of 

rated power, which is currently not 

addressed in the Operator Action 3.b. The 

proposed change does not involve a physical 

change to any SSCs, and there is no impact 

on their design function. The proposed 

change does not affect initiators of analyzed 

events. Therefore, the proposed change does 

not introduce any new failures that could 

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 provides 

required action for inoperability of nuclear 

flux intermediate range instrumentation 

between 7% and 11% of rated power in TS 

Table 3.7–1 Operator Action 3.b. Margin of 

safety is established through the design of 

plant SSCs, the parameters within which the 

plant is operated, and the establishment of 

the setpoints for the actuation of equipment 

relied upon to respond to an event. The 

proposed change does not impact the 

condition or performance of SSCs relied 

upon for accident mitigation or any safety 

analysis assumptions. Therefore, the 

proposed amendment does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

St., RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong. 

Previously Published Notices of 

Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The following notices were previously 

published as separate individual 

notices. The notice content was the 

same as above. They were published as 

individual notices either because time 

did not allow the Commission to wait 

for this biweekly notice or because the 

action involved exigent circumstances. 

They are repeated here because the 

biweekly notice lists all amendments 

issued or proposed to be issued 

involving no significant hazards 

consideration. 

For details, see the individual notice 

in the Federal Register on the day and 

page cited. This notice does not extend 

the notice period of the original notice. 

Florida Power and Light Company, et 

al., Docket No. 50–389, St. Lucie Plant, 

Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: May 31, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

Revise Technical Specification 3.1.3.4, 

related to requirements for Control 

Element Assembly (CEA) drop time to 

increase the available margin for CEA 

drop time testing. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in the Federal Register: June 1, 

2009 (74 FR 26261). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

July 1, 2009 (Comments) and July 31, 

2009 (Hearing). 

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 at1 (800) 397–4209, 

(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 

50–341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 

Michigan 

Date of application for amendment: 

September 12, 2008. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises Fermi 2 Plant 

Operating License, Appendix A, 

Technical Specifications (TS) to remove 

statements relating to Nuclear Power 

Plant Staff Working Hours in Section 

5.2.2, ‘‘Unit Staff,’’ specifically deleting 

subsection 5.2.2.e. The requested 

amendment removes references to and 

limits imposed by Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission Generic Letter (GL) 82–12, 

‘‘Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working 

Hours’’ from the administrative controls 

section of the Fermi 2 TS. The 

regulations in 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart 

I, supersede the guidelines in GL 82–12. 

Date of issuance: June 19, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented no 

later than October 1, 2009. 

Amendment No.: 181. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

43: Amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications and License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 2, 2008 (73 FR 

73353). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, 

Columbia Generating Station, Benton 

County, Washington 

Date of application for amendment: 

January 14, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment: (1) Deleted Technical 

Specification (TS) surveillance 

requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 and revised SR 

3.1.3.3, (2) removed the reference to SR 

3.1.3.2 from Required Action A.2 of TS 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices 34051 

3.1.3, ‘‘Control Rod OPERABILITY,’’ (3) 

renumbered SRs 3.1.3.3 through 3.1.3.5 

to reflect the deletion of SR 3.1.3.2, and 

(4) revised Example 1.4–3 in Section 

1.4, ‘‘Frequency,’’ to clarify the 

applicability of the 1.25 surveillance 

test interval extension. The changes are 

in accordance with NRC-approved TS 

Task Force (TSTF) change traveler 

TSTF–475, Revision 1, ‘‘Control Rod 

Notch Testing Frequency and SRM 

Insert Control Rod Action.’’ 

Date of issuance: June 30, 2009. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 212. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

21: The amendment revised the 

Operating Licenses and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 10, 2009 (74 FR 

6665). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 

50–458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, 

West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: January 

25, 2008, as supplemented by letters 

dated April 14 and 29, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ‘‘Main Turbine 

Bypass System.’’ The change provides 

an alternative to the existing Limiting 

Condition for Operation for the Main 

Turbine Bypass System (MTBS). The 

revised TS will require that the MTBS 

be operable or that the Average Planar 

Linear Heat Generation Rate, the 

Minimum Critical Power Ratio, and the 

Linear Heat Generation Rate limits for 

the inoperable MTBS be placed in effect 

as specified in the Core Operating 

Limits Report. 

Date of issuance: June 24, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 163. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

47: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 11, 2008 (73 FR 

13023). The supplemental letters dated 

April 14 and 29, 2009, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 24, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power 

Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, 

Illinois 

Date of application for amendment: 

June 21, 2007, as supplemented by letter 

dated January 30, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: A 

change is proposed to the technical 

specifications (TSs) of Clinton Power 

Station, Unit 1, consistent with TS Task 

Force (TSTF) change TSTF–423 to the 

standard technical specifications (STSs) 

for boiling-water reactor plants to allow, 

for some systems, entry into hot 

shutdown rather than cold shutdown to 

repair equipment, if risk is assessed and 

managed consistent with the program in 

place for complying with the 

requirements of Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 

50.65(a)(4). The proposed amendment 

would modify the TS to risk-informed 

requirements regarding selected 

required action end states provided in 

TSTF–423, Revision 0, ‘‘Technical 

Specification End States, NEDC–32988– 

A.’’ 

Date of issuance: June 26, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days. 

Amendment No.: 187. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

62: The amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications and License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 12, 2008 (73 FR 

8070). The January 30, 2009, 

supplement, contained clarifying 

information and did not change the NRC 

staff’s initial proposed finding of no 

significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Florida Power and Light Company, et 

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

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

County, Florida 

Date of application for amendments: 

June 30, 2008, as supplemented on 

August 13, 2008. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

proposed amendment modified 

Technical Specification (TS) 

requirements related to Refueling Water 

Tank (RWT) minimum contained 

volume of borated water. The proposed 

changes would make permanent the 

current administrative RWT minimum 

level of 32.5 feet for both units. 

Date of Issuance: June 30, 2009. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 209 and 157. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: Amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 10, 2009 (74 FR 

6665). The supplement dated August 13, 

2008, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, 

Minnesota 

Date of application for amendments: 

June 26, 2008, as supplemented by 

letters dated March 16 and May 1, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise the Facility 

Operating Licenses by revising the 

licensing basis loss-of-coolant accident 

and main steam line break accident 

radiological dose consequences as 

currently described in the Prairie Island 

Nuclear Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 

Updated Safety Analysis Report. The 

amendments also make concomitant 

amendments to Technical Specifications 

(TSs) 3.3.5, 3.4.17, and 3.6.3, which are 

necessary to implement the revised 

analyses. 

Date of issuance: June 19, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 191, 180. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

42 and DPR–60: Amendments revised 

the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 9, 2008 (73 FR 

52420). The supplemental letters 

contained clarifying information and 

did not change the initial no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and did not expand the scope of the 

original Federal Register notice. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34052 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern California Edison Company, 

et al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, 

Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, 

California 

Date of application for amendments: 

June 27, 2008, as supplemented letters 

dated August 13, 2008, and February 5, 

2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

changes consist of revisions to the 

Technical Specifications in support of 

the replacement of the steam generators 

(SGs) at San Onofre Nuclear Generating 

Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3. The 

changes reflect revised SG inspection 

and repair requirements, and revised 

peak containment post-accident 

pressure resulting from installation of 

the replacement SGs. 

Date of issuance: June 25, 2009. 

Effective date: Upon issuance; to be 

implemented for Unit 2 prior to entry 

into Mode 4 during the Unit 2 Cycle 16 

refueling outage return-to-service, and 

to be implemented for Unit 3 prior to 

entry into Mode 4 during the Unit 3 

Cycle 16 refueling outage return-toservice. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 2—220; Unit 

3–213. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

10 and NPF–15: The amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 23, 2008 (73 FR 

54867). The supplemental letters dated 

August 13, 2008, and February 5, 2009, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 

50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 

Callaway County, Missouri 

Date of application for amendment: 

June 3, 2008, as supplemented by letters 

dated January 9 and 23, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specifications (TSs) 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 3.7.10, 

3.7.13, 3.8.2, 3.8.5, 3.8.8, and 3.8.10. 

The amendment (1) deleted MODES 5 

and 6 from the Control Room 

Emergency Ventilation System and its 

actuation instrumentation in TS 3.7.10 

and TS 3.3.7; (2) adopted U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) change traveler TSTF–36–A for 

TSs 3.3.8, 3.7.13, 3.8.2, 3.8.5, 3.8.8, and 

3.8.10; and (3) added a more restrictive 

change to the Limiting Condition for 

Operation (LCO) applicability for TSs 

3.8.2, 3.8.5, 3.8.8, and 3.8.10 such that 

these LCOs apply not only during 

MODES 5 and 6, but also during the 

movement of irradiated fuel assemblies 

regardless of the MODE in which the 

plant is operating. 

Date of issuance: June 30, 2009. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 192. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

30: The amendment revised the 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR 

58678). The supplemental letters dated 

January 9 and 23, 2009, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

et al., Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, 

Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Surry County, Virginia 

Date of application for amendments: 

June 9, 2008. 

Brief description of amendments: 

These amendments revise the Technical 

Specifications to revise action 

statements in TS 3.12 for insertion limit 

and shutdown margin requirements, 

revise the applicability for the 

operability of the rod position 

indication and bank demand position 

indication systems, revise/add action 

statements for rod position indication, 

and add action statements for group step 

demand counters. 

Date of issuance: June 25, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 265, 264. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37: Amendments 

change the licenses and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 29, 2009 (73 FR 43957). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day 

of July 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–16347 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0307] 

Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, 

Availability 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance and 

availability of Regulatory Guide, RG 

5.75. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bonnie Schnetzler, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone: (301) 415– 

7883 or e-mail to 

Bonnie.Schnetzler@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or Commission) is 

issuing a new guide in the agency’s 

‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series 

was developed to describe and make 

available to the public information such 

as methods that are acceptable to the 

NRC staff for implementing specific 

parts of the agency’s regulations, 

techniques that the staff uses in 

evaluating specific problems or 

postulated accidents, and data that the 

staff needs in its review of applications 

for permits and licenses. 

RG 5.75, ‘‘Training and Qualification 

of Security Personnel at Nuclear Power 

Plants,’’ was issued with a temporary 

identification as Draft Regulatory Guide, 

DG–5015. This regulatory guide applies 

to operating power reactors licensed in 

accordance with Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations Part 50, ‘‘Domestic 

Licensing of Production and Utilization 

Facilities’’ (10 CFR Part 50), and with 10 

CFR Part 52, ‘‘Licenses, Certifications, 

and Approvals for Nuclear Power 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES