36274 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices 

throughout the nation. The three major 

funding components—institutional 

transformation, leadership, and 

partnership awards—as well as all 

cohorts funded that completed their 

funding cycles will be included. The 

study will rely on a thorough review of 

project documents, telephone 

interviews with all grantees, and 

detailed case studies at selected sites. 

The goal of the evaluation will be to 

identify models of implementation and, 

depending on outcomes by model, 

conduct case studies at selected 

institutions to understand how 

ADVANCE models operate and may be 

effective in differing settings. 

Respondents: Faculty and staff at 

institutions of higher education 

awarded an ADVANCE grant from NSF. 

Estimated Number of Annual 

Respondents: 200 (total). 

Burden on the Public: 200 hours. 

Dated: July 17, 2009. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. E9–17360 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–219; NRC–2009–0320] 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC; 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating 

Station; Environmental Assessment 

and Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of exemptions from Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G, 

‘‘Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown 

Capability,’’ for Renewed Facility 

Operating License No. DPR–16, for the 

use of operator manual actions in lieu 

of the requirements specified in Section 

III.G.2, as requested by Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC (the 

licensee), for operation of the Oyster 

Creek Nuclear Generating Station 

(Oyster Creek), located in Ocean 

County, New Jersey. Therefore, as 

required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is 

issuing this environmental assessment 

and finding of no significant impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would grant 

exemptions to 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix R, Section III.G.2 based on 20 

operator manual actions contained in 

the licensee’s Fire Protection Program 

(FPP). The licensee’s FPP requires that 

the identified operator manual actions 

be performed outside of the control 

room to achieve shutdown following 

fires in certain fire areas. The licensee 

states that each of the manual actions 

were subjected to a manual action 

feasibility review for Oyster Creek that 

determined that the manual actions are 

feasible and can be reliably performed. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

March 3, 2009 (available in the 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML090630132). 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed exemption from 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix R, was submitted in 

response to the need for an exemption 

as identified by NRC Regulatory 

Information Summary (RIS) 2006–10, 

‘‘Regulatory Expectations with 

Appendix R Paragraph III.G.2 Operator 

Manual Actions.’’ The RIS noted that 

NRC inspections identified that some 

licensees had relied upon operator 

manual actions, instead of the options 

specified in Paragraph III.G.2 of 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix R, as a permanent 

solution to resolve issues related to 

Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire barriers. The 

licensee indicates that some of the 

operator manual actions referenced in 

the March 3, 2009, application were 

previously included in correspondence 

with the NRC and found acceptable in 

a fire protection-related Safety 

Evaluation (SE) dated March 24, 1986 

(ADAMS Accession No. 8604070468). 

The remaining operator manual actions 

referenced were explicitly considered in 

an SE dated June 25, 1990 (ADAMS 

Accession No. 9006280092), supporting 

a separate Appendix R exemption. RIS 

2006–10, however, identifies that an 

exemption under 10 CFR Section 50.12 

is necessary for use of the manual 

actions in lieu of the requirements of 10 

CFR Part 50, Appendix R, III.G.2, even 

if the NRC previously issued an SE that 

found the manual actions acceptable. 

RIS 2006–10 and Enforcement Guidance 

Memorandum 07–004 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML071830345) provided 

that exemption requests must be 

submitted by March 6, 2009. The 

licensee’s proposed exemption provides 

the formal vehicle for NRC approval for 

the use of the specified operator manual 

actions instead of the options specified 

in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, III.G.2. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC staff evaluated the manual 

operator actions presented in the 

proposed exemption in NRC SEs dated 

March 24, 1986, and June 25, 1990, and 

found that they maintained a safe 

shutdown capability that satisfies the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix R, III.G. Therefore, the 

proposed action will not significantly 

increase the probability or consequences 

of accidents, nor does the proposed 

action introduce a new or different kind 

of accident. No changes are being made 

in the types of effluents that may be 

released off site. There is no significant 

increase in the amount of any effluent 

released off site. None of the manual 

actions to be performed are in areas that 

have radiation levels that would 

preclude entry. Further, the licensee 

stated that the highest expected dose 

during performance of the manual 

actions is 100 millirem (2 percent of the 

annual occupational limit) and the 

majority of manual actions are not in 

radiological controlled areas. Based on 

this consideration, the NRC staff finds 

that there is no significant increase in 

occupational or public radiation 

exposure. Therefore, there are no 

significant radiological impacts 

associated with the proposed action. 

The NRC staff, thus concludes that 

granting the proposed exemption would 

result in no significant radiological 

environmental impact. 

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 

action does not have a potential to affect 

any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no 

other environmental impact. Therefore, 

there are no significant non-radiological 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the 

application would result in no change 

in current environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the alternative action are 

similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

previously considered in the 1974 Final 

Environmental Statement for Oyster 

Creek and NUREG–1437, Vol. 1, 

Supplement 28, ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 

Regarding Oyster Creek Nuclear 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices 36275 

Generating Station, Final Report—Main 

Report.’’ 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on May 4, 2009, the NRC staff consulted 

with the New Jersey State official, Ron 

Zak of the Department of Environmental 

Protection, regarding the environmental 

impact of the proposed action. The State 

official had no comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter 

dated March 3, 2009 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML090630132). 

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 O1 

F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 

records will be accessible electronically 

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 by 

telephone at 1–800–397–4209 or 301– 

415–4737, or send an e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day 

of July 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

G. Edward Miller, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I– 

2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–17385 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318; NRC– 

2009–0321] 

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, 

Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of 

Application for Amendment to Facility 

Operating License 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) has 

granted the request of Calvert Cliffs 

Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. (the licensee) 

to withdraw its October 1, 2008, 

application for proposed amendment to 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–53 

and DPR–69 for the Calvert Cliffs 

Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

located in Calvert County, Maryland. 

The proposed amendments would 

introduce new license conditions 

requiring the reporting of reactor vessel 

(RV) inservice inspection (ISI) 

information and analyses as specified in 

Federal Register Notice (72 FR 56275) 

dated October 3, 2007, ‘‘Alternate 

Fracture Toughness Requirements for 

Protection Against Pressurized Thermal 

Shock Events.’’ These amendments were 

a required part of a code relief request, 

submitted by the licensee on October 1, 

2008, to extend the RV ISI 10-year 

inspection interval for RV weld 

examinations. 

The Commission had previously 

issued a Notice of Consideration of 

Issuance of Amendment published in 

the Federal Register on December 16, 

2008 (73 FR 76409). However, by letter 

dated July 8, 2009, the licensee 

withdrew the proposed change. 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendment dated October 1, 2008, and 

the licensee’s letter dated July 8, 2009, 

which withdrew the application for 

license amendment. 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 O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible electronically from the 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (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 by telephone at 1–800– 

397–4209, or 301–415–4737 or by e-mail 

to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day 

of July 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Douglas V. Pickett, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch I–1, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–17382 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–247 and 50–286; NRC– 

2009–0322] 

Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC; 

Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC; 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; 

Notice of Withdrawal of Application for 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License Nos. DPR–26 and DPR–64, 

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 

Nos. 2 and 3 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) has 

granted the request of Entergy Nuclear 

Operations, Inc. (the licensee) to 

withdraw its July 8, 2008 application for 

proposed amendment to Facility 

Operating License Nos. DPR–26 and 

DPR–64 for Indian Point Nuclear 

Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, located in 

Westchester County, New York. 

The proposed amendments would 

have added license conditions to 

support implementation of an extended 

inservice inspection interval for reactor 

vessel weld inspections. 

The Commission had previously 

issued a Notice of Consideration of 

Issuance of Amendment published in 

the Federal Register on September 9, 

2008 (73 FR 52416). However, by letter 

dated July 1, 2009, the licensee 

withdrew the proposed change. 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendment dated July 8, 2008, and the 

licensee’s letter dated July 1, 2009, 

which withdrew the application for a 

license amendment. 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 O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible electronically 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.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 by telephone at 1–800–397–4209, 

or 301–415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day 

of July 2009. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES