Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 37245 

Committee on Programs and Plans (CPP) 

Closed Session: 3:15 p.m.–5:15 p.m., 

Room 1235 

• NSB Action Item: Preliminary 

Design for the Deep Underground 

Science and Engineering Laboratory 

(DUSEL) 

• NSB Action Item: Approval of 

Construction Funding for the Advanced 

Technology Solar Telescope (ATST) 

Committee on Education and Human 

Resources (CEH) 

Open Session: 8:45 a.m.–9:45 a.m., 

Room 1295 

• Approval of May 2009 Minutes; 

• Update on the Next Generation of 

STEM Innovators Expert Panel 

Discussion; 

• STEM Education Grand Challenges; 

• Other Committee Business. 

Committee on Science and Engineering 

Indicators (SEI) 

Open Session: 9:45 a.m.–10:45 a.m., 

Room 1295 

• Approval of May Minutes; 

• Committee Chairman’s Remarks; 

• Discussion of Orange Book; 

• Discussion of Indicators Digest; 

• Discussion of Companion Piece. 

Executive Committee 

Open Session: 11 a.m.–11:15 a.m., Room 

1295 

• Approval of Minutes for the May 

2009 Meeting; 

• Executive Committee Chairman’s 

Remarks; 

• Approval of Closed Session Agenda 

Items memorandum for September 23– 

24, 2009 meeting; 

• Updates or New Business from 

Committee Members. 

Task Force on the NSB 60th 

Anniversary 

Open Session: 11:15 a.m.–11:30 a.m., 

Room 1295 

• Approval of Minutes for the May 

13, 2009 Meeting; 

• Task Force Chairman’s Remarks; 

• Further Discussion and Comments 

Relating to NSB 60th Anniversary. 

ad hoc Committee on Nominations for 

NSB Class of 2010–2016 

Closed Session: 11:30 a.m.–12 p.m., 

Room 1295 

• Approval of Minutes for the May 

13, 2009 Meeting; 

• Approval of Minutes for the July 28, 

2009 Teleconference; 

• Nominations Committee Acting 

Chairman’s Remarks; 

• Discussion of Nomination Packets. 

Thursday, August 6, 2009 

Committee on Audit and Oversight 

(A&O) 

Open Session: 8 a.m.–9:00 a.m., Room 

1235 

• Approval of Minutes of the May 14, 

2009 Meeting. 

• Committee Chairman’s Opening 

Remarks. 

• Human Resource Management at 

the National Science Foundation; 

• Chief Financial Officer’s Update 

including ARRA status update. 

Committee on Audit and Oversight 

(A&O) 

Closed Session: 9:00 a.m.–9:15 a.m., 

Room 1235 

• FY 2011 Budget for OIG. 

Committee on Strategy and Budget 

(CSB) 

Open Session: 9:15 a.m.–10:15 a.m., 

Room 1235 

• Approval of Minutes: 

Æ May 13–14, 2009 Provisional 

Minutes; 

Æ June 26, 2009 Teleconference 

Provisional Minutes; 

Æ July 24, 2009 Teleconference 

Provisional Minutes. 

• Committee Chairman’s Remarks. 

• Subcommittee on Facilities (SCF) 

Update. 

• NSF Budget Discussion. 

Æ FY 2010 Budget update; 

Æ FY 2009 Budget and ARRA update. 

• Other Committee Business. 

Committee on Strategy and Budget 

(CSB) 

Closed Session: 10:15 a.m.–10:45 a.m., 

Room 1235 

• Discussion of the FY 2011 OMB 

Budget Submission. 

Plenary Executive Closed 

Closed Session: 10:45 a.m.–11:00 a.m., 

Room 1235 

• Approval of Plenary Executive 

Closed Minutes, May 2009; 

• Approval of Nominations 

Committee Recommendations. 

Plenary Closed 

Closed Session: 11:00 a.m.–11:45 a.m., 

Room 1235 

• Approval of Plenary Closed 

Minutes, May 2009; 

• Awards and Agreements; 

• Closed Committee Reports. 

Plenary Open 

Open Session: 1 p.m.–3 p.m., Room 

1235 

• Director’s Award for Collaborative 

Integration; 

• Approval of Plenary Open Minutes, 

May 2009; 

• Chairman’s Report; 

• Director’s Report; 

• Open Committee Reports. 

Ann Ferrante, 

Technical Writer/Editor. 

[FR Doc. E9–17999 Filed 7–24–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0324] 

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 July 2, 2009 

to July 15, 2009. The last biweekly 

notice was published on July 14, 2009 

(74 FR 34044). 

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

37246 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 

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 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

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 37247 

petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or 

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

petitioner/requestor will need to 

download the Workplace Forms 

Viewer TM to access the Electronic 

Information Exchange (EIE), a 

component of the E-Filing system. The 

Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and 

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

Information about applying for a digital 

ID certificate is available on NRC’s 

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

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

Once a petitioner/requestor has 

obtained a digital ID certificate, had a 

docket created, and downloaded the EIE 

viewer, it can then submit a request for 

hearing or petition for leave to 

intervene. Submissions should be in 

Portable Document Format (PDF) in 

accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

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

complete at the time the filer submits its 

documents through EIE. To be timely, 

an electronic filing must be submitted to 

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

Eastern Time on the due date. Upon 

receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing 

system time-stamps the document and 

sends the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

EIE system also distributes an e-mail 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically may 

seek assistance through the ‘‘Contact 

Us’’ link located on the NRC Web site 

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

Meta-System Help Desk, which is 

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

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 

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 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 

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. 

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., 

Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, 

and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear 

Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, 

Maricopa County, Arizona 

Date of Amendment Request: May 28, 

2009. 

Description of Amendment Request: 

The amendments would delete those 

portions of the Technical Specifications 

(TSs) for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 

Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 that are 

superseded by the new requirements 

regarding working hours for nuclear 

plant staff in 10 CFR part 26, subpart I. 

This change is consistent with U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)- 

approved Technical Specification Task 

Force (TSTF) Improved Standard 

Technical Specification change traveler, 

TSTF–511, Revision 0, ‘‘Eliminate 

Working Hour Restrictions from TS 

5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 

CFR Part 26.’’ 

The NRC issued a ‘‘Notice of 

Availability of Model Safety Evaluation, 

Model No Significant Hazards 

Determination, and Model Application 

for Licensees That Wish to Adopt 

TSTF–511, Revision 0, ‘Eliminate 

Working Hour Restrictions from TS 

5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 

CFR part 26,’ ’’ in the Federal Register 

on December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79923). In 

its application dated May 28, 2009, the 

licensee affirmed the applicability of the 

model no significant hazards 

consideration. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

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 concurrent 

with or after the implementation of the 10 

CFR Part 26, Subpart I, requirements. In the 

event NRC approval for the requested 

amendment is not obtained before October 1, 

2009, the amendment shall be implemented 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

37248 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 

within 30 days of NRC approval and APS 

[Arizona Public Service Company] shall 

comply with the new 10 CFR 26, Subpart I, 

requirements and current Technical 

Specifications until the approved TS changes 

are implemented. 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 that 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the request 

for amendments involves no significant 

hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Michael G. 

Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 

Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. 

Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, Phoenix, 

Arizona 85072–2034. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket No. 50–346, 

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 

No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio 

Date of Amendment Request: June 2, 

2009. 

Description of Amendment Request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, 

Unit No. 1 (DBNPS) Technical 

Specifications (TS) 3.3.9, ‘‘Source Range 

Neutron Flux,’’ and TS 3.9.2, ‘‘Nuclear 

Instrumentation,’’ to exclude testing the 

source range neutron flux instrument 

channel preamplifier from the 

CHANNEL CALIBRATION requirements 

of the source range neutron flux 

instrument channels. 

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 TS change excludes the 

source range neutron flux instrument 

channel preamplifier from the CHANNEL 

CALIBRATION requirements for the source 

range neutron flux instrument channel. The 

source range neutron flux instrument 

channels are not involved in accident 

mitigation. The failure of a source range 

neutron flux channel does not initiate an 

accident or transient event. The proposed TS 

change does not alter the design or function 

of the source range neutron flux instrument 

channels, since no physical changes are 

being made to the plant. The availability of 

additional equipment to provide source range 

indication for comparison with the source 

range neutron flux instrument channels 

provides assurance of channel operation. 

Therefore, the proposed TS 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 TS change excludes the 

source range neutron flux instrument 

channel preamplifier from the CHANNEL 

CALIBRATION requirements for the source 

range neutron flux instrument channel. 

Based upon the current channel testing 

performed and the availability of alternate 

source range neutron flux indication for 

comparison, the operation of the source range 

neutron flux instrument channel is assured. 

The proposed TS change does not introduce 

any failure mechanisms of a different type 

than those previously evaluated since no 

physical changes to the plant are being made. 

No new or different equipment is being 

installed, and no installed equipment is 

being operated in a different manner. 

Therefore, the proposed TS 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 TS change excludes the 

source range neutron flux instrument 

channel preamplifier from the CHANNEL 

CALIBRATION requirements for the source 

range neutron flux instrument channel. 

Based upon the current channel testing 

performed and the availability of alternate 

source range neutron flux indication for 

comparison, the operation of the source range 

neutron flux instrument channel is assured. 

The proposed TS change does not alter the 

design or function of the source range 

neutron flux instrument channels since no 

physical changes are being made to the plant. 

Therefore, the proposed TS 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: David W. 

Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 

Corporation, Mail Stop A–GO–15, 76 

South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. 

NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. 

Campbell. 

Northern States Power Company, 

Docket No. 50–263, Monticello Nuclear 

Generating Plant, Wright County, 

Minnesota 

Date of Amendment Request: May 29, 

2009. 

Description of Amendment Request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 37249 

Table 3.3.6.1–1, ‘‘Primary Containment 

Isolation Instrumentation,’’ of the 

Technical Specifications (TS) by adding 

operational Mode 3, in addition to 

Modes 1 and 2 currently specified, to 

the Standby Liquid Control (SLC) 

System initiation applicability under 

the Reactor Water Cleanup (RWCU) 

System. This change would have the 

effect of aligning the required modes of 

applicability for the RWCU System 

isolation function to SLC System 

initiation. This is correction of a 

discrepancy that exists between this 

table and Specification 3.1.7, ‘‘Standby 

Liquid Control (SLC) System,’’ which 

specifies that the applicability of the 

SLC System is for Modes 1, 2, and 3. 

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 change to the applicability of 

this function does not change the actual 

conditions, operating configurations, or 

minimum amount of operating equipment 

assumed in the safety analysis for accident 

mitigation. 

The proposed change does not require any 

physical change to any plant systems, 

structures, or components nor does it require 

any change in systems or plant operations. 

The proposed change does not require any 

change in safety analysis methods or results. 

The SLC System is not an accident initiator. 

The proposed change to align the required 

modes of applicability for the RWCU 

isolation function on SLC initiation provide 

consistency with the previously NRC 

approved full-scope alternative source term 

(AST) analysis [Amendment No. 148] and 

hence 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. 

There are no hardware changes nor are 

there any changes in the method by which 

any plant systems perform a safety function. 

This request does not affect the normal 

method of plant operation. 

The proposed change does not introduce 

new equipment, which could create a new or 

different kind of accident. No new equipment 

failure modes are created. No new accident 

scenarios failure mechanisms, or limiting 

single failures are introduced as a result of 

this request. Therefore, the implementation 

of the proposed change will not create a 

possibility for an accident of a new or 

different type than those previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

There will be no change to the manner in 

which the SLC System or the RWCU System 

is operated. This change aligns the 

requirements in one part of the TS with 

requirements imposed in another portion of 

the TS. No new requirements are introduced. 

The proposed change improves the TS by 

removing an internal inconsistency and as 

such does not reduce or 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: Peter M. Glass, 

Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy 

Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, 

Minneapolis, MN 55401. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, 

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 

and 3, Limestone County, Alabama 

Date of Amendment Request: April 

24, 2009 (TS–464). 

Description of Amendment Request: 

The proposed changes would revise the 

Technical Specifications (TS) Bases 

sections 3.1.6, ‘‘Rod Pattern Control,’’ 

and 3.3.2.1, ‘‘Control Rod Block 

Instrumentation’’ to allow the Browns 

Ferry units to reference in the improved 

control rod banked position withdrawal 

sequence (BPWS) when performing a 

reactor shutdown. In addition, the 

proposed changes would add a footnote 

to TS Table 3.3.2.1–1, ‘‘Control Rod 

Block Instrumentation.’’ 

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. Consistent with the 

consolidated line item improvement 

process (CLIIP) the licensee referenced 

the no significant hazards consideration 

published on May 23, 2007 (72 FR 

29004) which is provided below: 

Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an 

Accident Previously Evaluated 

The proposed changes modify the TS to 

allow the use of the improved banked 

position withdrawal sequence (BPWS) during 

shutdowns if the conditions of NEDO– 

33091–A, Revision 2, ‘‘Improved BPWS 

Control Rod Insertion Process,’’ July 2004, 

have been satisfied. The staff finds that the 

licensee’s justifications to support the 

specific TS changes are consistent with the 

approved topical report and TSTF–476, 

Revision 1. Since the change only involves 

changes in control rod sequencing, the 

probability of an accident previously 

evaluated is not significantly increased, if at 

all. The consequences of an accident after 

adopting TSTF–476 are no different than the 

consequences of an accident prior to 

adopting TSTF–476. Therefore, the 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated are not significantly affected by 

this change. 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. 

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 

evaluated. The control rod drop accident 

(CRDA) is the design basis accident for the 

subject TS changes. This change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from an accident previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Reduction in the 

Margin of Safety 

The proposed change, TSTF–476, Revision 

1, incorporates the improved BPWS, 

previously approved in NEDO–33091–A, into 

the improved TS. The control rod drop 

accident (CRDA) is the design basis accident 

for the subject TS changes. In order to 

minimize the impact of a CRDA, the BPWS 

process was developed to minimize control 

rod reactivity worth for BWR plants. The 

proposed improved BPWS further simplifies 

the control rod insertion process, and in 

order to evaluate it, the staff followed the 

guidelines of Standard Review Plan Section 

15.4.9, and referred to General Design 

Criterion 28 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 

50 as its regulatory requirement. The TSTF 

stated the improved BPWS provides the 

following benefits: (1) Allows the plant to 

reach the all-rods-in condition prior to 

significant reactor cool down, which reduces 

the potential for re-criticality as the reactor 

cools down; (2) reduces the potential for an 

operator reactivity control error by reducing 

the total number of control rod 

manipulations; (3) minimizes the need for 

manual scrams during plant shutdowns, 

resulting in less wear on control rod drive 

(CRD) system components and CRD 

mechanisms; and, (4) eliminates unnecessary 

control rod manipulations at low power, 

resulting in less wear on reactor manual 

control and CRD system components. The 

addition of procedural requirements and 

verifications specified in NEDO–33091–A, 

along with the proper use of the BPWS will 

prevent a control rod drop accident (CRDA) 

from occurring while power is below the low 

power setpoint (LPSP). The net change to the 

margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, 

this change does not involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

37250 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 

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: Thomas H. Boyce. 

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 

50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 

Callaway County, Missouri 

Date of Amendment Request: May 4, 

2009. 

Description of Amendment Request: 

The proposed amendment would delete 

the working hours restrictions in 

paragraph d of Technical Specification 

(TS) 5.2.2, ‘‘Unit Staff.’’ The restrictions 

would be deleted because they are 

superseded by Title 10 of Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 26, 

Subpart I, consistent with U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved 

TS Task Force (TSTF) change traveler 

TSTF–511, Revision 0, ‘‘Eliminate 

Working Hour Restrictions from TS 

5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 

CFR part 26.’’ 

The NRC issued a ‘‘Notice of 

Availability of Model Safety Evaluation, 

Model No Significant Hazards 

Determination, and Model Application 

for Licensees That Wish to Adopt 

TSTF–511, Revision 0, ‘Eliminate 

Working Hour Restriction From TS 5.2.2 

To Support Compliance with 10 CFR 

Part 26’ ’’ in Federal Register on 

December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79923). In its 

application dated May 4, 2009, the 

licensee affirmed the applicability of the 

model no significant hazards 

consideration. 

Basis for Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

Criterion 1: Does the proposed amendment 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change removes TS 

restrictions on working hours for personnel 

who perform safety related functions. The TS 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR 26. Removal 

of the TS requirements will be performed 

concurrently with the implementation of the 

10 CFR 26, subpart I, requirements. The 

proposed change does not impact the 

physical configuration or function of plant 

structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or 

the manner in which SSCs are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

Worker fatigue is not an initiator of any 

accident previously evaluated. Worker 

fatigue is not an assumption in the 

consequence mitigation of any accident 

previously evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: Does the proposed amendment 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change removes TS 

restrictions on working hours for personnel 

who perform safety related functions. The TS 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR 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: Does the proposed amendment 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change removes TS 

restrictions on working hours for personnel 

who perform safety related functions. The TS 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR 26. The 

proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to plant or alter the manner 

in which plant systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined. The safety analysis 

acceptance criteria are not affected by this 

change. The proposed change will not result 

in plant operation in a configuration outside 

the design basis. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 

Removal of plant-specific TS 

administrative requirements will not reduce 

a margin of safety because the requirements 

in 10 CFR 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: John O’Neill, 

Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 

LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20037. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

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. 

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., 

Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris 

Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and 

Chatham Counties, North Carolina 

Date of Amendment Request: May 29, 

2008, as supplemented by letters dated 

November 14 and December 11, 2008. 

Description of Amendment Request: 

The proposed amendment would 

transition the fire protection program to 

a performance-based, risk-informed one 

based on the National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) Standard 805, 

‘‘Performance-Based Standard for Fire 

Protection For Light Water Reactor 

Generating Plants,’’ 2001 Edition, in 

accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c). NFPA 

805 allows the use of performance-based 

methods, such as fire modeling, and 

risk-informed methods, such as Fire 

Probabilistic Risk Assessment, to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

nuclear safety performance criteria. 

Date of Publication of Individual 

Notice in Federal Register: June 19, 

2009 (74 FR 29241). 

Expiration Date of Individual Notice: 

August 18, 2009. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 37251 

Florida Power Corporation, et al., 

Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 

No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus 

County, Florida 

Date of Amendment Request: June 3, 

2008, as supplemented by letters dated 

November 17, 2008, and April 8 and 

May 22, 2009. 

Brief Description of Amendment 

Request: The proposed amendment 

would revise the Crystal River Unit 3 

(CR–3) Final Safety Analysis Report 

Sections 5.4.3, ‘‘Structural Design 

Criteria’’ and 5.4.5.3, ‘‘Missile 

Analysis,’’ to include a statement 

regarding the design of the east wall of 

the CR–3 Auxiliary Building. The 

amendment would change the 

methodology used to qualify the east 

wall of the Auxiliary Building. The 

current methodology used the methods 

in American Concrete Institute (ACI) 

Standard 318–63, ‘‘Building Code 

Requirements for Reinforced Concrete,’’ 

June 1963. The proposed methodology 

is based on ACI 349–97, ‘‘Code 

Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related 

Concrete Structures,’’ as endorsed by 

NRC’s Standard Review Plan (NUREG 

0800), Revision 2—March 2007, Section 

3.8.4 ‘‘Other Seismic Category 1 

Structures.’’ 

Date of Publication of Individual 

Notice in Federal Register: June 23, 

2008 (74 FR 29732). 

Expiration Date of Individual Notice: 

August 24, 2009. 

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. 

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., 

Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris 

Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and 

Chatham Counties, North Carolina 

Date of Application for Amendment: 

February 26, 2009. 

Brief Description of Amendment: The 

proposed amendment would delete the 

Technical Specifications (TS) 

requirements related to hydrogen 

recombiners and hydrogen monitors. 

The proposed TS changes support 

implementation of the revisions to 10 

CFR 50.44, ‘‘Standards for Combustible 

Gas Control System in Light-WaterCooled Power Reactors,’’ which became 

effective on October 16, 2003. These 

changes are consistent with Revision 1 

of the NRC-approved Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

Standard Technical Specification 

Change Traveler TSTF–447, 

‘‘Elimination of Hydrogen Recombiners 

and Change to Hydrogen and Oxygen 

Monitors.’’ This technical specification 

improvement was initially made 

available in the Federal Register by the 

NRC on September 25, 2003 (68 FR 

55416). 

Date of Issuance: July 2, 2009. 

Effective Date: Effective as of the date 

of issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days. 

Amendment No.: 131. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–63: The amendment revises 

the Technical Specifications and 

Facility Operating License. 

Date of Initial Notice in Federal 

Register: June 2, 2009 (74 FR 26431). 

The Commission’s related evaluation of 

the amendment and final NSHC 

determination are contained in a safety 

evaluation dated July 2, 2009. 

Public Comments Requested as to 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration (NSHC): 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: 

February 24, 2009. 

Brief Description of Amendment: The 

proposed amendment would revise the 

Technical Specification (TS) 

Surveillance Requirement (SR) that 

governs operability testing of the 

pressure suppression chamber-drywell 

vacuum breakers to incorporate the SR 

contained within the Standard 

Technical Specifications (STS), 

NUREG–1433 and delete the SR that 

requires inspection of the pressure 

suppression chamber-drywell vacuum 

breakers. This requirement is replaced 

with the STS SR 3.6.1.8.2 to perform 

operability testing within 12 hours after 

the discharge of steam into the 

suppression chamber from the safety/ 

relief valves or following operation that 

causes any of the vacuum breakers to 

open. 

Date of Issuance: July 6, 2009. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 238. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

28: Amendment revised the License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of Initial Notice in Federal 

Register: April 7, 2009 (74 FR 15770). 

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, as supplemented 

by letter dated October 31, 2008. 

Brief Description of Amendment: The 

proposed amendment would relocate 

the contents of the Vermont Yankee 

(VY) Technical Specification relating to 

the Reactor Building crane to the VY 

Technical Requirements Manual. 

Date of Issuance: July 13, 2009. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

37252 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 239. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

28: Amendment revised the License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 18, 2008 (73 FR 

68454). The supplemental letter dated 

October 31, 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 this 

amendment is contained in a Safety 

Evaluation dated July 13, 2009. 

No Significant Hazards Consideration 

Comments Received: No. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket No. 50–263, 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, 

Wright County, Minnesota 

Date of Application for Amendment: 

June 26, 2008, as supplemented on 

January 27 and July 2, 2009. 

Brief Description of Amendment: The 

amendment revised the MNGP 

Technical Specifications (TS), changing 

the Required Actions and Completion 

Times in TS 3.5.1, ‘‘ECCS [Emergency 

Core Cooling System]—Operating,’’ to 

allow a 72-hour completion time to 

restore a low-pressure ECCS subsystem 

to operable status after discovery of two 

low-pressure ECCS subsystems 

inoperable. 

Date of Issuance: July 10, 2009. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 162. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

22: Amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of Initial Notice in Federal 

Register: August 12, 2008 (73 FR 

46930). 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. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 10, 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 August 4, August 26, and 

November 14, 2008, and January 30, 

February 9, February 20, March 12, and 

May 4 (2 letters), 2009. 

Brief Description of Amendments: The 

amendments revise the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) for Prairie Island 

Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

to allow the use of Westinghouse 422 

VANTAGE+ nuclear fuel and make 

changes to certain references in the 

Design Features section of the TSs. 

Date of Issuance: July 1, 2009. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 192, 181. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

42 and DPR–60: Amendments revised 

the Technical Specifications. 

Date of Initial Notice in Federal 

Register: September 23, 2008 (73 FR 

54866). 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. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 1, 2009. 

No Significant Hazards Consideration 

Comments Received: No. 

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50– 

387 and 50–388, Susquehanna Steam 

Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne 

County, Pennsylvania 

Date of Application for Amendments: 

February 20, 2009. 

Brief Description of Amendments: The 

amendments modified Technical 

Specifications (TS) requirements related 

to control room envelope habitability in 

TS 3.7.3, ‘‘Plant Systems Control Room 

Emergency Outside Air Supply 

(CREOAS) System,’’ and TS Section 5.5, 

‘‘Administrative Controls Programs and 

Manuals.’’ 

Date of Issuance: July 6, 2009. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance to be implemented within 180 

days. 

Amendment Nos.: 252 for Unit 1 and 

232 for Unit 2. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

14 and NPF–22: The amendments 

revised the License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of Initial Notice in Federal 

Register: April 21, 2009 (74 FR 18256). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 6, 2009. 

No Significant Hazards Consideration 

Comments Received: No. 

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50– 

387 and 50–388, Susquehanna Steam 

Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne 

County, Pennsylvania 

Date of Application for Amendments: 

March 24, 2009. 

Brief Description of Amendments: The 

amendments deleted Technical 

Specification (TS) Section 5.2.2.e, 

which is superseded by Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

Part 26, ‘‘Fitness For Duty Programs,’’ 

Subpart I, ‘‘Managing Fatigue.’’ This 

change is consistent with U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission approved 

Revision 0 to Technical Specification 

Task Force Improved Standard 

Technical Specification Change 

Traveler, TSTF–511, ‘‘Eliminate 

Working Hour Restrictions from TS 

5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 

CFR part 26.’’ 

Date of Issuance: July 13, 2009. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 253 for Unit 1 and 

233 for Unit 2. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

14 and NPF–22: The amendments 

revised the Licenses and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 5, 2009, (74 FR 20752). 

The Commission’s related evaluation of 

the amendments is contained in a Safety 

Evaluation dated July 13, 2009. 

No Significant Hazards Consideration 

Comments Received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th 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. E9–17699 Filed 7–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 72–25; NRC–2009–0076] 

U.S. Department of Energy; Idaho 

Spent Fuel Facility Notice of Order 

Approving Direct Transfer of Materials 

License 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Issuance of Order Approving 

Direct Transfer of Materials License No. 

SNM–2512. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shana Helton, Senior Project Manager, 

Licensing Branch, Division of Spent 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES