Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 20741-20758 [E9-10039]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20741-20758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10039]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0185]


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

[[Page 20742]]

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 April 9, 2009 to April 22, 2009. The last 
biweekly notice was published on April 21, 2009 (74 FR 18251).

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

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

[[Page 20743]]

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 ViewerTM 
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the 
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and is 
available at 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 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.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington

    Date of amendment request: March 30, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would delete 
those portions of Technical Specifications (TSs) superseded by Title 10 
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, Subpart I, 
consistent with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS 
Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-511, ``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

[[Page 20744]]

CFR Part 26'' in the Federal Register on December 30, 2008 (73 FR 
79923). In its application dated March 30, 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.
    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 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.
    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 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.
    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 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 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 analysis adopted by the licensee 
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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 
3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: August 7, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The submittal contains six 
proposed amendments that would modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 Operating 
Licenses DPR-44 and DPR-56, respectively. Four of the six amendments 
would incorporate Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) travelers 
that have been previously approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC). The remaining proposed amendments would modify the PBAPS Units 2 
and 3 Technical Specifications (TSs) to incorporate administrative 
changes and clarifications. Each of the six proposed TS amendments and 
the associated proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determinations are discussed below.
    A proposed amendment to incorporate TSTF-363-A, ``Revise Topical 
Report References in ITS [improved technical specifications] 5.6.5, 
COLR [Core Operating Limits Report],'' Revision 0, would modify the 
PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' 
to remove the requirement to maintain COLR Topical Report references by 
number, title, date, and NRC staff approved document, if included. 
Incorporation of the TSTF will permit referencing of the topical report 
by number and title only in the TSs. The additional details would be 
controlled within the COLR document instead of the TSs. Revision of 
these details would be subject to the requirements of Title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Section 50.59 for any changes as 
opposed to TS amendment.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This action does not affect the plant or operation of the plant. 
The change simply removes technical details from the Technical 
Specifications already included in the COLR. These technical details 
will still be subject to the regulations in 10 CFR 50.59. Therefore, 
the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. 
All systems, structures, and components previously required for the 
mitigation of a transient remain capable of fulfilling their 
intended design functions. The proposed change has no adverse 
effects on any safety-related system or component and does not 
challenge the performance or integrity of any safety related system. 
This change is considered as an administrative action. Therefore, 
the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This administrative action does not involve any reduction in a 
margin of safety. The change simply removes technical details from 
the Technical Specifications already included in the COLR. These 
technical

[[Page 20745]]

details will still be subject to the regulations in 10 CFR 50.59. 
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.
    A proposed amendment to incorporate TSTF-400-A, ``Clarification of 
Surveillance Requirement on Bypass of Noncritical DG [diesel generator] 
Automatic Trips,'' Revision 1, would modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.13 to clarify the intent of the SR. 
Specifically, the wording of the SR would be revised to clarify that 
the intent of the SR is to test non-critical Emergency DG automatic 
trips.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This change clarifies the purpose of SR 3.8.1.13, which is to 
verify that noncritical automatic Diesel Generator (DG) trips are 
bypassed in an accident. The DG automatic trips and their bypasses 
are not initiators of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, 
the probability of any accident is not significantly increased. The 
function of the DG in mitigating accidents is not changed. The 
revised SR continues to ensure the DG will operate as assumed in the 
accident analysis. Therefore, the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated 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 amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This change clarifies the purpose of SR 3.8.1.13, which is to 
verify that noncritical automatic DG trips are bypassed in an 
accident. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration 
of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. Thus, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This change clarifies the purpose of SR 3.8.1.13, which is to 
verify that noncritical automatic DG trips are bypassed in an 
accident. This change clarifies the purpose of the SR, which is to 
verify that the DG is capable of performing the assumed safety 
function. The safety function of the DG is unaffected, so the change 
does not affect the margin of safety. 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.
    A proposed amendment to incorporate TSTF-439-A, ``Elimination of 
Second Completion Times Limiting Time From Discovery of Failure To Meet 
an LCO,'' Revision 2, would modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS Section 
1.3, ``Completion Times,'' regarding second completion times for TS 
Action (TSA) statements. The plant TSs include Limiting Conditions of 
Operation (LCOs). LCOs are the minimum functional capabilities or 
performance levels of systems, structures and components (SSCs) that 
must be met in order for the plant to operate within its safety limits. 
A TSA is the required action that must be performed for an associated 
LCO. The PBAPS TSAs are composed of individual ``conditions,'' the 
associated action required for the condition, and the completion time 
for the associated action. The completion time is the time period 
specified in the TSA in which an action must be completed for a given 
condition. In some instances, alternate conditions could be entered and 
exited indefinitely such that operation of the plant could continue 
without ever restoring SSCs to meet the LCO. Additional secondary 
completion times (such as limits on the period of time from discovery 
of the failure to meet the LCO) were specified for these instances to 
preclude this practice. However, two programs have been instituted that 
provide a strong disincentive to licensees continuing operation with 
alternating TSAs for an LCO as described above. These programs are the 
Maintenance Rule and the Reactor Oversight Process. 10 CFR 50.65(a)(1), 
the Maintenance Rule, requires each licensee to monitor the performance 
or condition of SSCs against licensee-established goals to ensure that 
the SSCs are capable of fulfilling their intended functions. If the 
performance or condition of an SSC does not meet established goals, 
appropriate corrective action is required. The NRC Resident Inspectors 
monitor the licensee's Corrective Action process and could take action 
if the licensee's maintenance program allowed the systems required by a 
single LCO to become concurrently inoperable multiple times. The 
performance and condition monitoring activities required by 10 CFR 
50.65(a)(1) and (a)(2) would identify if poor maintenance practices 
resulted in multiple entries into the ACTIONS of the TSs and 
unacceptable unavailability of these SSCs. The effectiveness of these 
performance monitoring activities, and associated corrective actions, 
is evaluated at least every refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 months 
per 10 CFR 50.65(a)(3).
    NEI 99-02, ``Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator 
Guideline,'' describes the tracking and reporting of performance 
indicators to support the NRC's Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). The 
NEI document is endorsed by Regulatory Issue Summary 2001-11, 
``Voluntary Submission Of Performance Indicator Data.'' Extended 
unavailability due to multiple entries into the ACTIONS would affect 
the NRC's evaluation of the licensee's performance under the ROP.
    In addition to these programs, a requirement is added to Section 
1.3, ``Completion Times,'' of the TSs to require licensees to have 
administrative controls to limit the maximum time allowed for any 
combination of Conditions that result in a single contiguous occurrence 
of failing to meet the LCO. These administrative controls should 
consider plant risk and shall limit the maximum contiguous time of 
failing to meet the LCO.
    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 eliminates certain Completion Times from the 
Technical Specifications. Completion Times are not an initiator to 
any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of 
an accident previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences 
of an accident during the revised Completion Time are no different 
than the consequences of the same accident during the existing 
Completion Times. As a result, the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed 
change does not alter

[[Page 20746]]

or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 
from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences 
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The 
proposed change does not affect the source term, containment 
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating 
the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 
Further, the proposed change does not increase the types or amounts 
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor 
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public 
radiation exposures. The proposed change is consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. Therefore, 
the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The proposed change does not alter any assumptions made 
in the safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to delete the second Completion Time 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 of the design basis. 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.
    A proposed amendment to incorporate TSTF-485-A, ``Correct Example 
1.4-1,'' Revision 0, would modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS Section 
1.4, ``Frequency.'' Specifically, Example 1.4-1 would be revised to be 
consistent with the requirements of SR 3.0.4 which was revised by TSTF-
359, ``Increase Flexibility in Mode Restraints,'' Revision 9. The 
current version of Example 1.4-1 is not consistent with the current 
requirements of SR 3.0.4. Example 1.4-1 would be modified to reflect 
that it is possible to enter the MODE or other specified condition in 
the applicability of an LCO with a surveillance not performed within 
the frequency requirements of SR 3.0.2 without resulting in a violation 
of SR 3.0.4.
    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 revises Section 1.4, ``Frequency,'' Example 
1.4-1, to be consistent with Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.4 and 
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4. This change is 
considered administrative in that it modifies the example to 
demonstrate the proper application of SR 3.0.4 and LCO 3.0.4. The 
requirements of SR 3.0.4 and LCO 3.0.4 are clear and are clearly 
explained in the associated Bases. As a result, modifying the 
example will not result in a change in usage of the Technical 
Specifications (TS). The proposed change does not adversely affect 
accident initiators or precursors, the ability of structures, 
systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to 
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed 
acceptance limits, or radiological release assumptions used in 
evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated. Therefore, this change is considered administrative and 
will have no effect on the probability or consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed 
change. The change does not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. In addition, the change does not impose any new or 
different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The 
change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The 
proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions 
and current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is administrative and will have no effect on 
the application of the Technical Specification requirements. 
Therefore, the margin of safety provided by the Technical 
Specification requirements is unchanged. There are no changes to the 
plant safety analyses involved with this change. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    A proposed amendment would modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS to 
incorporate two administrative changes. The first change would modify 
TS Table 3.3.8.1-1, ``Loss of Power Instrumentation.'' TS Table 
3.3.8.1-1 lists the TS functions associated with the Loss of Power 
Instrumentation. The allowable values associated with the TS functions 
were revised as a result of a modification, but as described in the 
note, were to expire no later than March 1, 2000. The values in effect 
previous to the modification were retained in note (a) at the bottom of 
the Table. The previous values were retained as a note to allow for 
appropriate transition during the period of time that the modifications 
were being installed on Units 2 and 3.
    The modifications are complete and the note is no longer necessary. 
Therefore, it is proposed to eliminate note (a) at the bottom of Table 
3.3.8.1-1, as an administrative change to the TS.
    The second change would modify TS Table 3.3.3.1-1, ``Post Accident 
Monitoring Instrumentation,'' to correct a typographical error. A 
previous license amendment incorporated TSTF-295, Revision 0, ``Post 
Accident Monitoring Clarifications,'' which included changing the title 
for Function 8 in TS Table 3.3.3.1-1 from, ``PCIV Position,'' to 
``Penetration Flow Path PCIV Position.'' However, Function 8 was 
inadvertently revised on the PBAPS, Unit 2 page to state ``Penetration 
Flaw Path PCIV Position.'' The proposed amendment would correct this 
typographical error for Function 8 in Table 3.3.3.1-1 of the Unit 2 
PBAPS TS.
    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:


[[Page 20747]]


    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not 
impact the operation, physical configuration, or function of plant 
structures, systems, or components (SSCs). Also, the proposed 
changes do not impact the initiators or assumptions of analyzed 
events, nor do the proposed changes impact the mitigation of 
accidents or transient events. Therefore, the proposed changes do 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not 
alter plant configuration, require that new equipment be installed, 
alter assumptions made about accidents previously evaluated, or 
impact the operation or function of plant equipment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not 
involve any physical changes to plant SSCs, or the manner in which 
SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The 
proposed changes do not involve a change to any safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings, limiting conditions of operation, 
or design parameters for any SSC. The proposed changes do not impact 
any safety analysis assumptions and do not involve a change in 
initial conditions, system response times, or other parameters 
affecting any accident analysis. Therefore, the proposed changes do 
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    A proposed amendment would modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS to 
incorporate an administrative change to Table 3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor 
Protection System Instrumentation.'' Specifically, the proposed change 
would modify TS Table 3.3.1.1-1 to delete the ``NA'' from the Allowable 
Value column for Function 2.1, ``OPRM Upscale.'' The reference to 
footnote ``(d),'' which states: ``See COLR for OPRM period based 
detection algorithm (PBDA) setpoint limits,'' will remain in the 
Allowable Value column for Function 2.f in TS Table 3.3.1.1-1.
    Footnote ``d'' in TS Table 3.3.1.1-1 references the PBAPS Core 
Operating Limits Report (COLR) for setpoint limits associated with 
Function 2.f. There are trip setpoints maintained in the COLR which are 
considered applicable to the TSs since they satisfy the requirements of 
10 CFR 50.36 for limiting safety system settings. Therefore, the ``NA'' 
designation associated with note ``d'' will be eliminated to preclude 
possible confusion.
    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 is administrative in nature and does not 
impact the operation, physical configuration, or function of plant 
structures, systems, or components (SSCs). Also, the proposed change 
does not impact the initiators or assumptions of analyzed events, 
nor does the proposed change impact the mitigation of accidents or 
transient events. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not 
alter plant configuration, require that new equipment be installed, 
alter assumptions made about accidents previously evaluated, or 
impact the operation or function of plant equipment. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.

    The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not 
involve any physical changes to plant SSCs, or the manner in which SSCs 
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not involve a change to any safety limits, limiting safety 
system settings, limiting conditions of operation, or design parameters 
for any SSC. The proposed change does not impact any safety analysis 
assumptions and does not involve a change in initial conditions, system 
response times, or other parameters affecting any accident analysis. 
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. J. Bradley Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412, 
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver County, 
Pennsylvania

Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, 
Ottawa County, Ohio

Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, 
Ohio

    Date of amendment request: March 25, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
delete those portions of the subject plants' Technical Specifications 
superseded by 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I.
    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

[[Page 20748]]

    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 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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 
Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry 
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: March 11, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
adopt the Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 
Specification (STS) change TSTF-475, Revision 1. The amendment would: 
(1) Revise the TS surveillance requirement (SR) frequency in TS 3.1.3, 
``Control Rod OPERABILITY'' and (2) Revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 
``Frequency'' to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance 
test interval extension.
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued a notice of 
opportunity for comment in the Federal Register on November 13, 2007 
(72 FR 63935), on possible license amendments adopting TSTF-475 using 
the NRC's consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) for 
amending licensees' TSs, which included a model safety evaluation (SE) 
and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination. 
The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the 
models for referencing in license amendment applications in the Federal 
Register on August 16, 2007 (72 FR 46103), which included the 
resolution of public comments on the model SE. The August 16, 2007, 
notice of availability referenced the November 13, 2007, notice. The 
licensee has affirmed the applicability of the November 13, 2007, NSHC 
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 is presented below:
    Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated.
    The proposed change generically implements TSTF-475, Revision 1, 
``Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod 
Action.'' TSTF-475, Revision 1 modifies NUREG-1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG-
1434 (BWR/6) STS. The changes: (1) revise TS testing frequency for 
surveillance requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod 
OPERABILITY'', (2) clarify the requirement to fully insert all 
insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation (LCO) 
in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, ``Source Range Monitoring 
Instrumentation'' (NUREG-1434 only), and (3) revise Example 1.4-3 in 
Section 1.4 ``Frequency'' to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 
surveillance test interval extension. This change does not affect 
either the design or operation of the Control Rod Drive Mechanism 
(CRDM). The affected surveillance and Required Action is not considered 
to be an initiator of any analyzed event. Revising the frequency for 
notch testing fully withdrawn control rods will not affect the ability 
of the control rods to shutdown the reactor if required. Given the 
extremely reliable nature of the CRDM, as demonstrated through industry 
operating experience, the proposed monthly notch testing of all 
withdrawn control rods continues to provide a high level of confidence 
in control rod operability. Hence, the overall intent of the notch 
testing surveillances, which is to detect either random stuck control 
rods or identify generic concerns affecting control rod operability, is 
not significantly affected by the proposed change. Requiring control 
rods to be fully inserted when the associated SRM is inoperable is 
consistent with other similar requirements and will increase the 
shutdown margin. The clarification of Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 
``Frequency'' is an editorial change made to provide consistency with 
other discussions in Section 1.4. Therefore, the proposed changes do 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated. The consequences of an accident 
after adopting TSTF-475, Revision 1 are no different than the 
consequences of an accident prior to adoption. Therefore, this change 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of 
a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously 
Evaluated.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed 
change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in 
the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose 
consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously analyzed. 
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in the Margin of Safety.

[[Page 20749]]

    TSTF-475, Revision 1 will: (1) Revise the TS SR 3.1.3.2 frequency 
in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY'', (2) clarify the requirement 
to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition 
for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, ``Source Range Monitoring 
Instrumentation,'' and (3) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 
``Frequency'' to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance 
test interval extension. The GE Nuclear Energy Report, ``CRD Notching 
Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,'' dated November 
2006, concludes that extending the control rod notch test interval from 
weekly to monthly is not expected to impact the reliability of the 
scram system and that the analysis supports the decision to change the 
surveillance frequency. Therefore, the proposed changes in TSTF-475, 
Revision 1 do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests 
involve 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: Russell Gibbs.

FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: February 18, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would 
eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from Technical Specification (TS) 
6.2.2 to support compliance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, Subpart I, consistent with the U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved TS Task Force (TSTF) 
traveler TSTF-511, ``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 February 18, 2009, the 
licensee concluded that the no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) 
determination presented in the notice is applicable to Seabrook 
Station.
    Basis for proposed NSHC determination: As required by 10 CFR 
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of NSHC, 
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 accident initiators, or affect the function of 
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    Criterion 3: The proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety-related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. The proposed change 
does not involve any physical changes to the plant or alter the 
manner in which plant systems are operated, maintained, modified, 
tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not alter the manner 
in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting 
conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis 
acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed 
change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside 
the design basis. The proposed change does not adversely affect 
systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 
the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
    Removal of plant-specific Technical Specification administrative 
requirements will not reduce a margin of safety because the 
requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 are adequate to ensure that worker 
fatigue is managed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, and based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves NSHC.
    Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Richard Ennis.

Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee), Docket No. 50-315 and 
50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2, Berrien 
County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: January 14, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the Operating License (OL), Condition 2.C.(2) and Appendix B, 
Environmental Technical Specifications, Part II, ``Non-Radiological 
Environmental Protection Plan [EPP].'' The licensee states that the 
proposed amendment is administrative in nature and intended to delete 
obsolete program information to relieve CNP of the burden of preparing 
and submitting unnecessary environmental reports.
    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 Environmental Protection Plant (EPP) is concerned with 
monitoring the effect that plant operations have on the environment 
for the purpose of protecting the environment and has no effect on 
any accident postulated

[[Page 20750]]

in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Accident probabilities 
or consequences are not affected in any way by the environmental 
monitoring and reporting required by the EPP. The revision or 
deletion of portions of Appendix B of the OL will not impact the 
design or operation of any plant system or component. No 
environmental protection requirements established by other federal, 
state, or local agencies are being reduced by this license amendment 
request.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability of occurrence or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are administrative in nature. Environmental 
monitoring and reporting have no effect on accident