Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 28575-28583 [E9-13999]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28575-28583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13999]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0234]


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 May 21, 2009, to June 3, 2009. The last 
biweekly notice was published on June 2, 2009 (74 FR 26428).

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 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

[[Page 28576]]

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 
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the 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 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.

[[Page 28577]]

    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.govnrc.gov.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346, 
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: April 15, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
incorporate the use of alternate methodologies for the calculation of 
reactor pressure vessel beltline weld initial reference temperatures, 
the calculation of the adjusted reference temperatures (ARTs), the 
development of the reactor pressure vessel pressure-temperature (P-T) 
limit curves, and the low temperature reactor coolant system (RCS) 
overpressure analysis into Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.4. The 
amendment would also revise the analysis requirement for the low 
temperature RCS overpressure events from 21 to 32 Effective Full Power 
Years (EFPY) contained in Operating License (OL) Condition 2.C(3)(d).
    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 amendment request proposes two changes to the TS/OL. The 
first change incorporates the use of alternative methodologies to 
develop the [Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1] DBNPS P-
T limit curves and [low temperature over pressure] LTOP limits into 
TS 5.6.4 to augment the existing listed methodology of BAW-10046A, 
Revision 2. The second change revises OL Condition 2.C(3)(d) to 
reflect the revised LTOP analysis is valid to 32 EFPY.
    The first change incorporates the use of Topical Report BAW-
2308, Revisions 1-A and 2-A; modified ORNL/TM 2006/530 equations, 
and ASME Code Cases N-588 and N-640. The topical report and ASME 
code cases have been approved or accepted for use by the [Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission] NRC (provided that any conditions/limitations 
are satisfied). The modified ORNL/TM 2006/530 equations result in a 
more conservative ART value for the limiting reactor vessel 
component. The proposed additions to the methodologies for the 
reactor vessel P-T curve development provide an acceptable means of 
satisfying the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix G. The proposed 
additions do not alter the design or function of any plant 
equipment. Therefore, the proposed additions do not affect the 
probability or consequences of any previously evaluated accidents, 
including reactor coolant pressure boundary failures.
    The second change is considered administrative in nature and 
reflects the revised methodologies. It will not alter the design or 
operation of any plant equipment. Therefore, the proposed change 
does not affect the probability or consequences of any previously 
evaluated accidents.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The amendment request proposes two changes to the TS/OL. The 
first change incorporates the use of alternative methodologies to 
develop the DBNPS P-T limit curves and LTOP limits into TS 5.6.4 to 
augment the existing listed methodology of BAW-10046A, Revision 2. 
The second change revises OL Condition 2.C(3)(d) to reflect that the 
revised analysis is valid to 32 EFPY.
    The first change incorporates methodologies that either have 
been approved or accepted for use by the NRC (provided that any 
conditions/limitations are satisfied), or are conservative to 
current methodologies. The changes do not alter the design or 
function of any plant equipment. The P-T limit curves and LTOP 
limits will provide the same level of protection to the reactor 
coolant boundary as was previously evaluated. Therefore, the 
proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The second change is considered administrative in nature and 
reflects the revised methodologies. It will not alter the design or 
operation of any 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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The amendment request proposes two changes to the TS/OL. The 
first change incorporates the use of alternative methodologies to 
develop the DBNPS P-T limit curves and LTOP limits into TS 5.6.4 to 
augment the existing listed methodology of BAW-10046A, Revision 2. 
The second change revises OL Condition 2.C(3)(d) to reflect that the 
revised analysis is valid to 32 EFPY.
    The first change incorporates methodologies that either have 
been approved or accepted for use by the NRC (provided that any 
conditions/limitations are satisfied), or are conservative to 
current methodologies. The second change is considered 
administrative in nature and reflects the revised methodologies. The 
changes do not alter the design or function of any plant equipment. 
The P-T limit curves and LTOP limits will provide the same level of 
protection to the reactor coolant boundary as was previously 
evaluated. 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.
    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.

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, (NMPNS) Docket No. 50-410, Nine 
Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit No. 2 (NMP 2), Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: March 30, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' 
by revising certain Surveillance Requirements (SRs) pertaining to the 
Division 3 emergency diesel generator (DG). The Division 3 DG is an 
independent source of onsite alternating current (AC) power dedicated 
to the high-pressure core spray (HPCS) system. The TSs currently 
prohibit performing the DG testing required by certain SRs in either 
Modes 1 or 2 or in Modes 1, 2, or 3. The proposed amendment would also 
remove these mode restrictions and allow certain SRs to be performed in 
any operating Mode for the Division 3 DG.
    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 Division 3 (HPCS) DG and its associated emergency loads are 
accident mitigating features, not accident initiators. Therefore, 
the proposed TS changes to allow

[[Page 28578]]

the performance of Division 3 DG surveillance testing in any plant 
operating mode will not significantly impact the probability of any 
previously evaluated accident.
    The design of plant equipment is not being modified by the 
proposed changes. As such, the ability of the Division 3 DG to 
respond to a design basis accident will not be adversely impacted by 
the proposed changes. The proposed changes to the TS surveillance 
testing requirements for the Division 3 DG do not affect the 
operability requirements for the DG, as verification of such 
operability will continue to be performed as required. Continued 
verification of operability supports the capability of the Division 
3 DG to perform its required function of providing emergency power 
to HPCS system equipment, consistent with the plant safety analyses. 
Limiting testing to only one DG at a time ensures that design basis 
requirements are met. Should a fault occur while testing the 
Division 3 DG, there would be no significant impact on any accident 
consequences since the other two divisional DGs and associated 
emergency loads would be available to provide the minimum safety 
functions necessary to shut down the unit and maintain it in a safe 
shutdown condition.
    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 changes are being made to the plant that would introduce any 
new accident causal mechanism. Equipment will be operated in the 
same configuration with the exception of the plant operating mode in 
which the Division 3 DG surveillance testing is conducted. 
Performance of these surveillances tests while online will continue 
to verify operability of the Division 3 DG. The proposed amendment 
does not impact any plant systems that are accident initiators and 
does not adversely impact any accident mitigating systems.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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.
    Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the 
fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and 
primary containment) to perform their design functions during and 
following postulated accidents. The proposed changes to the TS 
surveillance testing requirements for the Division 3 DG do not 
affect the operability requirements for the DG, as verification of 
such operability will continue to be performed as required. 
Continued verification of operability supports the capability of the 
Division 3 DG to perform its required function of providing 
emergency power to HPCS system equipment, consistent with the plant 
safety analyses. Consequently, the performance of the fission 
product barriers will not be adversely impacted by implementation of 
the proposed amendment. In addition, the proposed changes do not 
alter setpoints or limits established or assumed by the accident 
analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire, Winston & 
Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas V. Pickett.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PINGP), 
Goodhue County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: April 15, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
delete those portions of the Technical Specifications (TSs) superseded 
by 10 CFR part 26, subpart I. The proposed change is consistent with 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Technical Specification 
Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard TS Change Traveler, TSTF-511, 
``Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support 
Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26,'' Revision 0. The availability of this 
TS improvement was announced in the Federal Register (FR) on December 
30, 2008 (73 FR 79923) as part of the consolidated line item 
improvement process. The licensee concluded that the no significant 
hazards consideration determination as presented in the FR notice is 
applicable to MNGP and PINGP.
    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 [accident] 
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 plants] 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

[[Page 28579]]

safely shutdown the plants and to maintain the plants 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 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 requests involve no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.

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: May 5, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
delete those portions of Technical Specifications (TS) superseded by 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, Subpart 
I, consistent with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-
approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard 
Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-511, Revision 0, 
``Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support 
Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.''
    The NRC staff 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). The notice included a model safety evaluation, 
a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, and 
a model license amendment request. In its application dated May 5, 
2009, the licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC 
determination.
    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 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 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 shut down 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 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.
    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.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: March 3, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
delete those portions of Technical Specifications (TS) superseded by 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, Subpart 
I, consistent with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-
approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved 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.'' In its application dated March 3, 2009, the licensee 
proposed one variation to the model application, a change to the 
applicable TS section from TS 5.2.2 to TS 6.2.2.
    The NRC staff 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). The notice included a model safety evaluation, 
a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, and 
a model license amendment request. In its application

[[Page 28580]]

dated March 3, 2009, the licensee affirmed the applicability of the 
model NSHC determination, which is presented below.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of NSHC 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 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 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 analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: April 21, 2009 (TSC 07-05).
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) and upgrade the Emergency 
Core Cooling System (ECCS) requirements to be more consistent with 
NUREG-1431, Revision 3, ``Standard Technical Specifications--
Westinghouse Plants.'' The upgrade revises Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, 
Units 1 and 2 TS Section 3/4.5.2, ``ECCS Subsystems--Tavg 
Greater Than or Equal to 350 [deg]F,'' TS Section 3/4.5.3, ``ECCS 
Subsystems--Tavg Less Than 350 [deg]F,'' and the 
corresponding surveillance requirements (SRs) that will resolve a non-
confirming condition associated with SR 4.5.2.f.
    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. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    TVA's proposed change is not considered to be a significant 
departure from the current requirements and is considered an upgrade 
for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant's (SQN's) emergency core cooling system 
(ECCS) technical specification (TS) requirements. The ECCS is 
qualified and designed to provide core cooling and negative 
reactivity to ensure the reactor core is protected in the event of a 
loss of coolant accident (LOCA), rod ejection accident, loss of 
secondary coolant accident, and steam generator tube rupture (SGTR). 
The proposed change does not alter qualification or design features 
associated with SQN's ECCS. The probability of occurrence of an 
accident is not increased as the changes do not affect the system's 
capability for performing ECCS operation during injection, cold leg 
recirculation, and hot leg recirculation. The proposed changes 
continue to ensure that SQN's ECCS satisfies 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR 
50, Appendix A requirements. Therefore, the proposed amendment does 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The possibility for a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated does not exist as a result of the 
proposed changes. The upgrade of SQN TSs to industry Improved 
Standard TS (ISTS) requirements provide an overall improvement and 
ensures that SQN's ECCS is capable of performing the design 
functions under accident conditions. The system design associated 
with injection, cold leg recirculation, and hot leg recirculation, 
remain unchanged. Accordingly, the proposed change does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed upgrade of SQN's ECCS TSs to the ISTS does not 
affect existing safety margins. The system requirements continue to 
require that ECCS components are operable for plant operation (Modes 
1, 2, and 3) and during plant shutdown (Mode 4). In addition, the 
proposed change does not increase the risk for an accident because 
no physical changes to the plant are being made and design features 
associated with ECCS continue to satisfy 10 CFR 50.46 requirements. 
Accordingly, TVA concludes that the margin of safety has not been 
reduced.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,

[[Page 28581]]

400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

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.

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power 
Station (KPS), Kewaunee County, Wisconsin

    Date of amendment request: August 14, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment changed Section 
4.4.f.1 of the Technical Specifications to require verification that 
the 36-inch containment purge and vent isolation valves are sealed 
closed when the reactor is at greater than Cold Shutdown Conditions. 
The previous Section 4.4.f.1 required such verification when the 
reactor is critical.
    Date of issuance: June 1, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 206.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (73 
FR 52414).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated June 1, 2009.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., 
120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, Westchester County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: July 30, 2008, as supplemented 
February 2 and May 7, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) by allowing a one-time extension to TS 3.8.1, 
Required Action A.4, to support replacement of a cooling oil pump on 
the station auxiliary transformer. Specifically, the Completion Time to 
restore operability of the offsite circuit associated with the station 
auxiliary transformer would be extended from 72 hours to 144 hours.
    Date of issuance: May 27, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 260.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-26: The amendment revised the 
License and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 27, 2008 (73 FR 
50649)
    The February 2 and May 7, 2009, supplements provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 27, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: September 18, 2008, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 26, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Action 
Statements `a' and `b' of Technical Specification 3/4.9.6, ``Refueling 
Machine,'' to clarify acceptability of placing a suspended fuel 
assembly or control element assembly within the reactor vessel in a 
safe condition while restoring the refueling machine operability.
    Date of issuance: June 4, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to the start of the fall 2009 refueling outage (RF16) fuel 
movement.
    Amendment No.: 220.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 30, 2008 (73 
FR 79931). The supplemental letter dated February 26, 2009, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 4, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

    Date of application for amendment: August 28, 2008, supplemented by 
letter dated January 19, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Crystal 
River Unit 3 (CR-3) Improved Technical Specifications to implement the 
Technical Specifications Task Force Standard Technical Specification 
Change Traveler 449, Revision 4 inspection requirements for the

[[Page 28582]]

replacement once through steam generators (OTSGs) that are being 
installed during the CR-3 fall 2009 refueling outage. The replacement 
OTSGs differ from the existing OTSGs in that the tube material is Alloy 
690 thermally treated in the replacements versus Alloy 600 in the 
existing OTSGs. Additionally, this amendment removes inspection 
requirements that are designated for specific damage conditions in the 
existing OTSGs, remove tube repair techniques approved by the license 
amendment No. 233, dated May 16, 2007, for the existing OTSGs, and 
remove inspection and reporting requirements specific to those repair 
techniques.
    Date of issuance: May 29, 2009.
    Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented upon startup 
from Refueling Outage R16.
    Amendment No.: 234.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revises the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 24, 2009 (74 
FR 8284). The supplemental letter was included in the initial proposed 
no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 29, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: February 12, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments deleted those 
portions of Technical Specifications (TSs) 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.''
    Date of Issuance: May 27, 2009.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 208 and 156.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: 
Amendments revised the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 24, 2009 (74 FR 
12393).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 27, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: May 30, 2008, as supplemented by 
letters dated July 17, 2008, September 10, 2008, and February 27, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment would revise 
Technical Specifications (TS) Table 3.3.8.1-1, ``Loss of Power 
Instrumentation,'' specifically to change the maximum allowable voltage 
of the 4.16-kV Emergency Bus Undervoltage function from less-than-or-
equal-to 3899 V to less-than-or-equal-to 3822 V.
    Date of issuance: May 15, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 273.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 21, 2008 (73 FR 
62565). The supplements dated July 17, 2008, September 10, 2008, and 
February 27, 2009 provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application, and did not 
change the Commission's proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 15, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272 and 50-311, Hope Creek 
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of application for amendments: January 5, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments eliminate 
unnecessary reporting requirements in the Facility Operating Licenses 
(FOLs) and Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the amendments 
delete: (1) Section 2.F of the FOL for Hope Creek Generating Station; 
(2) Section 2.I of the FOL for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 
No. 2; and (3) Technical Specification (TS) 6.9.3 for all three units. 
A notice of availability for this FOL and TS improvement using the 
consolidated line item improvement process was published by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission in the Federal Register on November 4, 2005 (70 
FR 67202).
    Date of issuance: June 2, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 178, 291 and 275.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-57, DPR-70 and DPR-75: The 
amendments revised the TSs and the Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 24, 2009 (74 
FR 8287).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 2, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

    Date of application for amendments: October 30, 2008, as 
supplemented by a letter dated November 20, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments (1) revised the 
frequency of Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2, notch testing of 
fully withdrawn control rod, from ``7 days after the control rod is 
withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the LPSP [lower-power set-
point] of RWM [rod worth minimizer]'' to ``31 days after the control 
rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the LPSP of the 
RWM'' and (2) revises Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 ``Frequency'' to 
clarify that the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension in SR 3.0.2 
is applicable to time periods discussed in NOTES in the 
``SURVEILLANCE'' column in addition to the time periods in the 
``FREQUENCY'' column.
    Date of issuance: May 29, 2009.
    Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 274, 301, and 260.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: 
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 24, 2009 (74 
FR 8288).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 29, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of June 2009.


[[Page 28583]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-13999 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P