Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 12390-12399 [E9-6112]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12390-12399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6112]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0131]


Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

I. Background

    Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. 
The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments 
issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the 
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an 
operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such 
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from February 26, 2009, through March 11, 2009. 
The last biweekly notice was published on March 10, 2009 (74 FR 10305).

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, 
and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing Branch, TWB-05-B01M, Division of Administrative 
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. Copies of written comments 
received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room 
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license. 
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be 
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for 
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) 
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition 
for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a 
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the 
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party

[[Page 12391]]

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; 
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The 
petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the 
petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC 
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process 
requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents 
over the Internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage 
media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless 
they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor 
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
hearingdocket@nrc.gov, or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) 
already holds an NRC-issued 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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information about applying for a 
digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
    Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, 
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit 
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions 
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC 
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC electronic filing 
Help Desk, which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. The help 
electronic filing Help Desk can be contacted by telephone at 1-866-672-
7640 or by e-mail at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance 
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting 
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such 
filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 
Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited 
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a 
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all 
other participants. Filing is considered complete by 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 petition 
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be 
admitted, based on a

[[Page 12392]]

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 
https://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or 
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal 
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, 
or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or 
other law requires submission of such information. With respect to 
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose 
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Entergy 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 21, 2009, as supplemented on 
January 23, 2009.
    Description of Amendment Request: The proposed changes to the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) adopt NRC-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) 
traveler TSTF 163, ``Minimum vs. Steady-State Voltage and Frequency,'' 
TSTF-222, ``Control Rod Scram Time Testing,'' TSTF-230, ``Residual Heat 
Removal Suppression Pool Cooling Limiting Condition for Operation 
[LCO],'' and TSTF-306, ``LCO Action Note to Allow Unisolation of 
Penetration Flow Path(s),'' and make two minor administrative 
corrections.
    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 for TSTF-230, which is presented below:

    1. Does the Proposed Change Involve a Significant Increase in 
the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the Required Actions of LCO 
[limiting condition for operation] 3.6.2.3 by allowing 8 hours to 
restore one RHR [residual heat removal] suppression pool cooling 
subsystem to OPERABLE status when both subsystems have been 
determined to be inoperable. Required Actions and their associated 
Completion Times are not initiating conditions for any accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed 8 hour Completion Time provides 
some time to restore required subsystem(s) to OPERABLE status, yet 
is short enough that operating an additional 8 hours is not a 
significant risk. The Required Actions in the proposed change have 
been developed to provide assurance that appropriate remedial 
actions are taken in response to the degraded condition, considering 
the operability status of the RHR Suppression Pool Cooling System 
and the capability of minimizing the risk associated with continued 
operation. As a result, neither the probability nor the consequences 
of any accident previously evaluated are significantly increased. 
Therefore, this 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 a physical modification or 
alteration of plant equipment (no new or different type of equipment 
will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The Required Actions and associated Completion Times in 
the proposed change have been evaluated to ensure that no new 
accident initiators are introduced. Thus, this change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the Proposed Change Involve a Significant Reduction in a 
Margin of Safety?
    Response: No.
    The relaxed Required Actions do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed change has been 
evaluated to minimize the risk of continued operation with both RHR 
suppression pool cooling subsystems inoperable. The operability 
status of the RHR Suppression Pool Cooling System, a reasonable time 
for repair or replacement of required features, and the low 
probability of a design basis accident occurring during the repair 
period have been considered in the evaluation. Therefore, this 
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.

    The licensee has also provided its analysis of the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration for TSTFs-163, 222, and 306, and the 
proposed two minor administrative corrections, 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 minor administrative changes which, (1) corrects Action 
Statement 3.7.2.F, and (2) changes a reference number from ``ANSI 
N510-1989'' to ``ASME N510-1989,'' has no impact on any structure, 
system, component, program, or analysis.
    The adoption of TSTF-163 does not change the manner in which the 
EDGs [emergency diesel generators] are operated and, when 
implemented, will continue to ensure the EDGs perform their function 
when called upon. The proposed revision to the TS SRs [surveillance 
requirements] will continue to ensure that minimum frequency and 
voltage are attained within the required time. The SRs will continue 
to ensure that proper steady state voltage and frequency are 
attained consistent with proper EDG governor and voltage regulator 
performance. Therefore, the probability or consequences of 
previously evaluated accidents are not significantly increased.
    The proposed change to adopt TSTF-222 is an administrative 
clarification of existing Technical Specification requirements 
regarding scram time testing requirements for control rods. It 
consists of administrative changes that involve wording changes that 
clarify requirements without changing the original intent. As such, 
these types of changes do not affect initiators of analyzed events 
and do not affect the mitigation of any accidents or transients.
    The proposed change to adopt TSTF-306 allows primary containment 
and drywell isolation valves to be unisolated under administrative 
controls when the associated isolation instrumentation is not 
operable. The isolation function is an accident mitigating function 
and is not an initiator of an accident previously evaluated. 
Administrative controls are required to be in effect when the valves 
are unisolated so that the penetration can be rapidly isolated when 
the need is indicated. Therefore, the probability or consequences of 
previously evaluated accidents are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the Proposed Change Create the Possibility of a New or 
Different Kind of Accident from Any Accident Previously Evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The minor administrative changes which, (1) corrects Action 
Statement 3.7.2.F, and (2) changes a reference number from ``ANSI 
N510-1989'' to ``ASME N510-1989,'' has no impact on any structure, 
system, component, program, or analysis.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed), do 
not change the design function of any equipment, and do not change 
the methods of normal plant operation. Accordingly, the

[[Page 12393]]

proposed changes do not create any new credible failure mechanisms, 
malfunctions, or accident initiators not previously considered in 
the RBS [River Bend Station] design and licensing basis.
    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 minor administrative changes which, (1) corrects Action 
Statement 3.7.2.F, and (2) changes a reference number from ``ANSI 
N510-1989'' to ``ASME N510-1989,'' has no impact on any structure, 
system, component, program, or analysis.
    Adoption of TSTF-163 does not impact EDG performance, including 
the capability for each EDG to attain and maintain required voltage 
and frequency for accepting and supporting plant safety loads within 
the required time, as assumed in the plant safety analysis. The 
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety since the operability of the EDGs continues to be 
determined as required to support the capability of the EDGs to 
provide emergency power to plant equipment that mitigate the 
consequences of an accident.
    The proposed change associated with TSTF-222 involves an 
administrative clarification to better delineate the requirements 
for scram time testing control rods following refueling outages and 
for control rods requiring testing due to work activities. As such, 
the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.
    The change to allow containment and drywell isolation valves to 
be unisolated under administrative control (TSTF-306) does not 
reduce any margins to safety because the proposed allowance for the 
supporting isolation instrumentation is no less restrictive than the 
allowance for the equipment it supports. When the valves are 
unisolated, the design basis function of containment isolation is 
maintained by administrative controls. The proposed changes have no 
affect on any safety analysis assumptions or methods of performing 
safety analyses. The changes do not adversely affect system 
operability or design requirements and the equipment continues to be 
tested in a manner and at a frequency necessary to provide 
confidence that the equipment can perform its intended safety 
functions.
    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.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of Amendment Request: February 12, 2009.
    Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment would 
delete those portions of Technical Specifications (TS) superseded by 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 26, Subpart 
I. This change is consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard 
Technical Specification Change Traveler TSTF-511, ``Revision 0, 
``Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support 
Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.''
    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 is presented below:

Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. Removal of the 
Technical Specification requirements will be performed concurrently 
with the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I, 
requirements. The proposed change does not impact the physical 
configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue is not an 
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Worker fatigue is 
not an assumption in the consequence mitigation of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a 
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. Working hours will 
continue to be controlled in accordance with NRC requirements. The 
new rule allows for deviations from controls to mitigate or prevent 
a condition adverse to safety or as necessary to maintain the 
security of the facility. This ensures that the new rule will not 
unnecessarily restrict working hours and thereby create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change does not alter the plant configuration, 
require new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or effect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. Therefore, the proposed change does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any previously evaluated.

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in a Margin of Safety

    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. The proposed change 
does not involve any physical changes to plant or alter the manner 
in which plant systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, 
or inspected. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which 
safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting 
conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis 
acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed 
change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside 
the design basis. The proposed change does not adversely affect 
systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 
the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Removal of plant-specific 
Technical Specification administrative requirements will not reduce 
a margin of safety because the requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 are 
adequate to ensure that worker fatigue is managed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for Licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy 
Center, Linn County, Iowa

    Date of Amendment Request: January 30, 2009.
    Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment would 
delete the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC)

[[Page 12394]]

Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.2.2.e regarding work hour 
controls.
    Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. Removal of the 
Technical Specification requirements will be performed concurrently 
with the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I, 
requirements. The proposed change does not impact the physical 
configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue is not an 
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Worker fatigue is 
not an assumption in the consequence mitigation of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a 
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. Working hours will 
continue to be controlled in accordance with NRC requirements. The 
new rule allows for deviations from controls to mitigate or prevent 
a condition adverse to safety or as necessary to maintain the 
security of the facility. This ensures that the new rule will not 
unnecessarily restrict working hours and thereby create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change does not alter the plant configuration, 
require new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or [a]ffect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in a Margin of Safety

    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. The proposed change 
does not involve any physical changes to the plant or alter the 
manner in which plant systems are operated, maintained, modified, 
tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not alter the manner 
in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting 
conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis 
acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed 
change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside 
the design basis. The proposed change does not adversely affect 
systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 
the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
    Removal of plant-specific Technical Specification administrative 
requirements will not reduce a margin of safety because the 
requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 are adequate to ensure that worker 
fatigue is managed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, and based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for Licensee: Mr. R. E. Helfrich, Florida Power & Light 
Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 
California

    Date of Amendment Request: February 24, 2009.
    Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP), Units 1 and 2 Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) 
Instrumentation.'' The amendment will delete the requirement for the 
power range neutron flux rate-high negative rate trip function as 
specified in TS Table 3.3.1-1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,'' 
as Function 3.b, ``Power Range Neutron Flux Rate-High Negative Rate.''
    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 removal of the power range neutron flux rate-high negative 
rate trip function from the DCPP TS does not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents resulting from dropped RCCA 
[rod cluster control assembly] events previously analyzed. The 
safety functions of other safety-related systems and components, 
which are related to mitigation of these events, have not been 
altered. All other reactor trip system protection functions are not 
impacted by the deletion of the trip function. The dropped RCCA 
accident analysis does not rely on the negative flux rate trip to 
safely shut down the plant. The safety analysis of the plant is 
unaffected by the proposed change. Since the safety analysis is 
unaffected, the calculated radiological releases associated with the 
analysis are not affected.
    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 Accident from Any Accident Previously Evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not adversely alter the design 
assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility or the 
manner in which the plant is operated. No new accident scenarios, 
failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a 
result of the proposed change. The proposed change does not 
challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-related systems 
or components. NRC-approved Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP-11394-
P-A, ``Methodology for the Analysis of the Dropped Rod Event,'' 
dated January 1990, has demonstrated that the negative flux rate 
trip function can be deleted.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the Proposed Change Involve a Significant Reduction in a 
Margin of Safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of 
any accident is unchanged. It has been demonstrated that the 
negative flux rate trip function can be deleted by the NRC-approved 
methodology described in WCAP-11394-P-A. DCPP cycle-specific 
analyses have confirmed that for dropped RCCA events, limits on DNB 
[departure from nucleate boiling] are not exceeded by deleting the 
negative flux rate trip. The proposed change will have no effect on 
the availability, operability, or performance of safety-related 
systems and components.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.

[[Page 12395]]

    Attorney for Licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of Amendment Request: February 17, 2009.
    Description of Amendment Request: The licensee proposes to amend 
the operating license for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, by revising 
the technical specifications (TS) and incorporating an alternative 
source term (AST) methodology into the facility's licensing basis. The 
proposed license amendment involves a full implementation of an AST 
methodology by revising the current accident source term and replacing 
it with an AST, as prescribed in 10 CFR 50.67.
    AST analyses were performed using the guidance provided by 
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, ``Alternative Source Terms for Evaluating 
Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' dated July 2000, 
and Standard Review Plan (SRP) Section 15.0.1, ``Radiological 
Consequences Analyses Using Alternative Source Terms.'' TS changes are 
also proposed to implement Technical Specifications Task Force Traveler 
51, Revision 2, which permits removal of the TS requirements for 
engineered safety features to be operable after sufficient radioactive 
decay has occurred to ensure off-site doses remain below the SRP 
limits. Other TS revisions reflect the update of the accident source 
term and associated design basis accidents utilizing the guidance 
provided in RG 1.183 and the associated control room and offsite dose 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.67. The AST analyses are based on new control 
room habitability atmospheric dispersion coefficients based on site 
specific meteorological data in accordance with RG 1.194.
    Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination: As required by10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided 
its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, 
which is presented below:

1.0 Does the Proposed Change Involve a Significant Increase in the 
Probability of Occurrence or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated?

    Response: No.
    Adoptions of the AST and pursuant TS changes and the changes to 
the atmospheric dispersion factors have no impact to the initiation 
of DBAs. Once the occurrence of an accident has been postulated, the 
new accident source term and atmospheric dispersion factors are an 
input to analyses that evaluate the radiological consequences. Some 
of the proposed changes do affect the design or manner in which the 
facility is operated following an accident; however, the proposed 
changes do not involve a revision to the design or manner in which 
the facility is operated that could increase the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated in Chapter 15 of the FSAR.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve an increase in 
the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The structures, systems and components affected by the proposed 
changes act as mitigators to the consequences of accidents. Based on 
the AST analyses, the proposed changes do revise certain performance 
requirements; however, the proposed changes do not involve a 
revision to the parameters or conditions that could contribute to 
the initiation of an accident previously discussed in Chapter 15 of 
the FSAR.
    Plant-specific radiological analyses have been performed using 
the AST methodology and new atmospheric dispersion factors. Based on 
the results of these analyses, it has been demonstrated that the 
CRHE dose consequences of the limiting events considered in the 
analyses meet the regulatory guidance provided for use with the AST, 
and the offsite doses are within acceptable limits. This guidance is 
presented in 10 CFR 50.67, RG 1.183, and Standard Review Plan 
Section (SRP) 15.0.1.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in a 
significant increase in the consequences of any previously evaluated 
accident.

2.0 Does the Proposed Change Create the Possibility of a New or 
Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously Evaluated?

    Response: No.
    Implementation of AST and the associated proposed TS changes and 
new atmospheric dispersion factors do not alter or involve any 
design basis accident initiators. With the exception of the fuel 
handling accident, these changes do not affect the design function 
or mode of operations of structures, systems and components in the 
facility prior to a postulated accident. Since structures, systems 
and components are operated essentially no differently after the AST 
implementation, no new failure modes are created by this proposed 
change. The alternative source term change itself does not have the 
capability to initiate accidents.
    For the fuel handling accident, the Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications Change Traveler (TSTF-51, Revision 2) permits removal 
of the Technical Specification requirements for ESF features to be 
operable after sufficient radioactive decay has occurred to ensure 
off-site doses remain below the SRP limits. As noted in this 
submittal no credit is taken for the accident mitigation of the ESF 
features associated with the fuel handling accidents to meet these 
limits. Since these are not associated with accident initiators the 
proposed license amendment will not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.

3.0 Does the Proposed Change Involve a Significant Reduction in a 
Margin of Safety?

    Response: No.
    The results of the AST analyses are subject to the acceptance 
criteria in 10 CFR 50.67. The analyzed events have been carefully 
selected, and the analyses supporting these changes have been 
performed using approved methodologies to ensure that analyzed 
events are bounding and safety margin has not been reduced. The dose 
consequences of these limiting events are within the acceptance 
criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67, RG 1.183, and SRP 15.0.1. Thus, 
by meeting the applicable regulatory limits for AST, there is no 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    New Control Room atmospheric dispersion factors (X/
Qs) based on site specific meteorological data, calculated in 
accordance with the guidance of RG 1.194, utilizes more recent data 
and improved calculational methodologies.
    For the fuel handling accident, the Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications Change Traveler (TSTF-51, Revision 2) permits removal 
of the Technical Specification requirements for ESF features to be 
operable after sufficient radioactive decay has occurred to ensure 
off-site doses remain below the SRP limits. Following sufficient 
decay, the primary success paths for mitigating the fuel handling 
accident no longer includes the functioning of the active 
containment or fuel handling building systems. With the proposed 
changes, the OPERABILITY requirements of the Technical 
Specifications will reflect that water level (23') and decay time 
(72 hours after shutdown) are the primary success path for 
mitigating a fuel handling accident.
    Therefore, because the proposed changes continue to result in 
dose consequences within the applicable regulatory limits, the 
changes are considered to not result in 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: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina 
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 
29218.
    NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of Amendment Request: March 2, 2009.
    Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment would 
delete those portions of technical

[[Page 12396]]

specifications (TS) superseded by Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR ) Part 26, Subpart I. This change is consistent 
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Revision 0 to 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-511, 
``Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support 
Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.'' The availability of this TS 
improvement was announced in the Federal Register on December 30, 2008, 
(73 FR 79923) as part of the consolidated line item improvement 
process.
    Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. Removal of the 
Technical Specification requirements will be performed concurrently 
with the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I, 
requirements. The proposed change does not impact the physical 
configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue is not an 
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Worker fatigue is 
not an assumption in the consequence mitigation of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a 
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. Working hours will 
continue to be controlled in accordance with NRC requirements. The 
new rule allows for deviations from controls to mitigate or prevent 
a condition adverse to safety or as necessary to maintain the 
security of the facility. This ensures that the new rule will not 
unnecessarily restrict working hours and thereby create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change does not alter the plant configuration, 
require new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in a Margin of Safety

    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. The proposed change 
does not involve any physical changes to the plant or alter the 
manner in which plant systems are operated, maintained, modified, 
tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not alter the manner 
in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting 
conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis 
acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed 
change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside 
the design basis. The proposed change does not adversely affect 
systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain 
the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
    Removal of plant-specific Technical Specification administrative 
requirements will not reduce a margin of safety because the 
requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 are adequate to ensure that worker 
fatigue is managed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 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: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina 
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 
29218.
    NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia

    Date of Amendment Request: February 6, 2009.
    Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendments would 
delete applicable portions of the technical specifications (TSs) 
superseded by Part 26, Subpart I of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR). This change is consistent with Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC)-approved Revision 0 to Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, 
TSTF-511, ``Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to 
Support Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.'' The availability of this TS 
improvement was announced in the Federal Register on December 30, 2008 
(73 FR 79923) as part of the consolidated line item improvement 
process. The licensee affirmed the applicability of the model no 
significant hazards consideration determination in its application.
    Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration adopted by the licensee is 
presented below:

Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change removes TS restrictions on working hours for 
personnel who perform safety related functions. The TS restrictions 
are superseded by the worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. 
Removal of the TS requirements will be performed concurrently with 
the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I, requirements. 
The proposed change does not impact the physical configuration or 
function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the 
manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected. Worker fatigue is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an assumption in the 
consequence mitigation of any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a 
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change removes TS restrictions on working hours for 
personnel who perform safety related functions. The TS restrictions 
are superseded by the worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. 
Working hours will continue to be controlled in accordance with NRC 
requirements. The new rule allows for deviations from controls to 
mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to safety or as necessary to 
maintain the security of the facility. This ensures that the new 
rule will not unnecessarily restrict working hours and thereby 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change does not alter the plant configuration, 
require new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different

[[Page 12397]]

kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in a Margin of Safety

    The proposed change removes TS restrictions on working hours for 
personnel who perform safety related functions. The TS restrictions 
are superseded by the worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. 
The proposed change does not involve any physical changes to plant 
or alter the manner in which plant systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not alter 
the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings 
or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety 
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The 
proposed change will not result in plant operation in a 
configuration outside the design basis. The proposed change does not 
adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant 
and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
    Removal of plant-specific TS administrative requirements will 
not reduce a margin of safety because the requirements in 10 CFR 
Part 26 are adequate to ensure that worker fatigue is managed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's incorporation of the 
above analysis by reference and, based on this review, it appears that 
the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. 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 Street, RS-2, Richmond, 
VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.

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, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-
318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert 
County, Maryland

    Date of Application for Amendments: August 27, 2008, as 
supplemented by letters dated December 11, 2008, and March 2, 2009.
    Brief Description of Amendments: The amendments revise Technical 
Specification 3.5.5, ``Trisodium Phosphate (TSP),'' by changing the 
containment buffering agent from trisodium phosphate to sodium 
tetraborate. The change will minimize the potential for sump screen 
blockage under loss-of-coolant accident conditions due to potential 
chemical interactions between trisodium phosphate and insulation 
materials inside containment.
    Date of Issuance: March 4, 2009.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance. Implementation at Unit 
No. 1 shall be no later than startup from the spring 2010 refueling 
outage whereas implementation at Unit No. 2 shall be prior to entry 
into Mode 4 following the spring 2009 refueling outage.
    Amendment Nos.: 290 and 266.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69: 
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: October 21, 2008 (73 FR 
62562). The supplemental letters dated December 11, 2008, and March 2, 
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 these amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 4, 2009.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, 
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North 
Carolina

    Date of Application for Amendments: December 11, 2007, as 
supplemented December 18, 2008.
    Brief Description of Amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications sections to allow the bypass test times and 
Completion Times (CTs) for Limiting Condition for Operation (LCOs) 
3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation'' and 3.3.2, 
``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation.''
    By letter dated December 30, 2008 (Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System Accession No. ML083520046), the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission issued Amendment No. 248 and Amendment No. 228 for McGuire 
Units 1 and 2, respectively, for all the proposed changes approved by 
the NRC in TSTFs 411 and 418. The December 30, 2008 amendment stated 
that the following changes would be evaluated in a future amendment:

    LCO 3.3.1, ``RTS Instrumentation,'' Condition N, One Reactor 
Coolant Flow--Low (Single Loop) channel inoperable, LCO 3.3.2, 
``ESFAS Instrumentation,'' Condition D, Auxiliary Feedwater Start 
with Station Blackout.''

    This amendment approves the above changes.
    Date of Issuance: March 9, 2009.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 250 and 230.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: Amendments 
revised the

[[Page 12398]]

licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: March 25, 2008 (73 FR 
15783). The supplement dated December 18, 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 March 9, 2009.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont

    Date of Application for Amendment: September 4, 2008, as 
supplemented by letter dated January 28, 2009.
    Brief Description of Amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specification (TS) Section 5.1, ``Site,'' to remove the restriction on 
the sale and lease of site property and replace the restriction with a 
requirement to retain complete authority to determine and maintain 
sufficient control of all activities, including the authority to 
exclude or remove personnel and property, within the minimum exclusion 
area.
    Date of Issuance: February 26, 2009.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 235.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the 
License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR 
65692). The supplemental letter dated January 28, 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 propos