Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 37245-37252 [E9-17699]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37245-37252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17699]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0324]


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

I. Background

    Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act 
requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue 
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license 
upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no 
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before 
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from July 2, 2009 to July 15, 2009. The last 
biweekly notice was published on July 14, 2009 (74 FR 34044).

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this

[[Page 37246]]

proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking 
and Directives Branch (RDB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of Administrative 
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be faxed to the RDB at 301-492-3446. Documents may be examined, and/or 
copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at 
One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license. 
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be 
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for 
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) 
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition 
for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a 
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the 
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held 
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC 
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139), The E-Filing process 
requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents 
over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic 
storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their 
filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures 
described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor 
should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the

[[Page 37247]]

petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds 
an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/requestor will 
need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer \TM\ to access the 
Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing 
system. The Workplace Forms Viewer \TM\ is free and is available at 
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. 
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on 
NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
    Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, 
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit 
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions 
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC 
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an 
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a 
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to 
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others 
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the 
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC Meta-System Help 
Desk, which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. The Meta-System 
Help Desk can be contacted by telephone at 1-866-672-7640 or by e-mail 
at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants 
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the 
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by 
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, 
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the 
document with the provider of the service.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the request and/
or petition should be granted and/or the contentions should be 
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
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 submissions.
    For further details with respect to this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from 
the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of Amendment Request: May 28, 2009.
    Description of Amendment Request: The amendments would delete those 
portions of the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Palo Verde Nuclear 
Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 that are superseded by the new 
requirements regarding working hours for nuclear plant staff in 10 CFR 
part 26, subpart I. This change is consistent with U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specification change traveler, TSTF-
511, Revision 0, ``Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to 
Support Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.''
    The NRC issued a ``Notice of Availability of Model Safety 
Evaluation, Model No Significant Hazards Determination, and Model 
Application for Licensees That Wish to Adopt TSTF-511, Revision 0, 
`Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support 
Compliance with 10 CFR part 26,' '' in the Federal Register on December 
30, 2008 (73 FR 79923). In its application dated May 28, 2009, the 
licensee affirmed the applicability of the model no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

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

    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. Removal of the 
Technical Specification requirements will be performed concurrent 
with or after the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I, 
requirements. In the event NRC approval for the requested amendment 
is not obtained before October 1, 2009, the amendment shall be 
implemented

[[Page 37248]]

within 30 days of NRC approval and APS [Arizona Public Service 
Company] shall comply with the new 10 CFR 26, Subpart I, 
requirements and current Technical Specifications until the approved 
TS changes are implemented. The proposed change does not impact the 
physical configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue is not an 
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Worker fatigue is 
not an assumption in the consequence mitigation of any accident 
previously evaluated. Therefore, it is concluded that this change 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

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

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

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

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

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of Amendment Request: June 2, 2009.
    Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 (DBNPS) 
Technical Specifications (TS) 3.3.9, ``Source Range Neutron Flux,'' and 
TS 3.9.2, ``Nuclear Instrumentation,'' to exclude testing the source 
range neutron flux instrument channel preamplifier from the CHANNEL 
CALIBRATION requirements of the source range neutron flux instrument 
channels.
    Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
     Response: No.
    The proposed TS change excludes the source range neutron flux 
instrument channel preamplifier from the CHANNEL CALIBRATION 
requirements for the source range neutron flux instrument channel. 
The source range neutron flux instrument channels are not involved 
in accident mitigation. The failure of a source range neutron flux 
channel does not initiate an accident or transient event. The 
proposed TS change does not alter the design or function of the 
source range neutron flux instrument channels, since no physical 
changes are being made to the plant. The availability of additional 
equipment to provide source range indication for comparison with the 
source range neutron flux instrument channels provides assurance of 
channel operation.
    Therefore, the proposed TS change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
     Response: No.
    The proposed TS change excludes the source range neutron flux 
instrument channel preamplifier from the CHANNEL CALIBRATION 
requirements for the source range neutron flux instrument channel. 
Based upon the current channel testing performed and the 
availability of alternate source range neutron flux indication for 
comparison, the operation of the source range neutron flux 
instrument channel is assured. The proposed TS change does not 
introduce any failure mechanisms of a different type than those 
previously evaluated since no physical changes to the plant are 
being made. No new or different equipment is being installed, and no 
installed equipment is being operated in a different manner.
    Therefore, the proposed TS change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
     Response: No.
    The proposed TS change excludes the source range neutron flux 
instrument channel preamplifier from the CHANNEL CALIBRATION 
requirements for the source range neutron flux instrument channel. 
Based upon the current channel testing performed and the 
availability of alternate source range neutron flux indication for 
comparison, the operation of the source range neutron flux 
instrument channel is assured. The proposed TS change does not alter 
the design or function of the source range neutron flux instrument 
channels since no physical changes are being made to the plant.
    Therefore, the proposed TS change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. Campbell.

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

    Date of Amendment Request: May 29, 2009.
    Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment would 
revise

[[Page 37249]]

Table 3.3.6.1-1, ``Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,'' of 
the Technical Specifications (TS) by adding operational Mode 3, in 
addition to Modes 1 and 2 currently specified, to the Standby Liquid 
Control (SLC) System initiation applicability under the Reactor Water 
Cleanup (RWCU) System. This change would have the effect of aligning 
the required modes of applicability for the RWCU System isolation 
function to SLC System initiation. This is correction of a discrepancy 
that exists between this table and Specification 3.1.7, ``Standby 
Liquid Control (SLC) System,'' which specifies that the applicability 
of the SLC System is for Modes 1, 2, and 3.
    Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
     Response: No.
    The proposed change to the applicability of this function does 
not change the actual conditions, operating configurations, or 
minimum amount of operating equipment assumed in the safety analysis 
for accident mitigation.
    The proposed change does not require any physical change to any 
plant systems, structures, or components nor does it require any 
change in systems or plant operations. The proposed change does not 
require any change in safety analysis methods or results. The SLC 
System is not an accident initiator. The proposed change to align 
the required modes of applicability for the RWCU isolation function 
on SLC initiation provide consistency with the previously NRC 
approved full-scope alternative source term (AST) analysis 
[Amendment No. 148] and hence do not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
     Response: No.
    There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the 
method by which any plant systems perform a safety function. This 
request does not affect the normal method of plant operation.
    The proposed change does not introduce new equipment, which 
could create a new or different kind of accident. No new equipment 
failure modes are created. No new accident scenarios failure 
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result 
of this request. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed 
change will not create a possibility for an accident of a new or 
different type than those previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
     Response: No.
    There will be no change to the manner in which the SLC System or 
the RWCU System is operated. This change aligns the requirements in 
one part of the TS with requirements imposed in another portion of 
the TS. No new requirements are introduced. The proposed change 
improves the TS by removing an internal inconsistency and as such 
does not reduce or involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for Licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.

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

    Date of Amendment Request: April 24, 2009 (TS-464).
    Description of Amendment Request: The proposed changes would revise 
the Technical Specifications (TS) Bases sections 3.1.6, ``Rod Pattern 
Control,'' and 3.3.2.1, ``Control Rod Block Instrumentation'' to allow 
the Browns Ferry units to reference in the improved control rod banked 
position withdrawal sequence (BPWS) when performing a reactor shutdown. 
In addition, the proposed changes would add a footnote to TS Table 
3.3.2.1-1, ``Control Rod Block Instrumentation.''
    Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. Consistent with the consolidated line item improvement 
process (CLIIP) the licensee referenced the no significant hazards 
consideration published on May 23, 2007 (72 FR 29004) which is provided 
below:

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

    The proposed changes modify the TS to allow the use of the 
improved banked position withdrawal sequence (BPWS) during shutdowns 
if the conditions of NEDO-33091-A, Revision 2, ``Improved BPWS 
Control Rod Insertion Process,'' July 2004, have been satisfied. The 
staff finds that the licensee's justifications to support the 
specific TS changes are consistent with the approved topical report 
and TSTF-476, Revision 1. Since the change only involves changes in 
control rod sequencing, the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated is not significantly increased, if at all. The 
consequences of an accident after adopting TSTF-476 are no different 
than the consequences of an accident prior to adopting TSTF-476. 
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are 
not significantly affected by this change. Therefore, this change 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

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

    The proposed change will not introduce new failure modes or 
effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, 
lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated. The control rod drop accident (CRDA) 
is the design basis accident for the subject TS changes. This change 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from an accident previously evaluated.

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

    The proposed change, TSTF-476, Revision 1, incorporates the 
improved BPWS, previously approved in NEDO-33091-A, into the 
improved TS. The control rod drop accident (CRDA) is the design 
basis accident for the subject TS changes. In order to minimize the 
impact of a CRDA, the BPWS process was developed to minimize control 
rod reactivity worth for BWR plants. The proposed improved BPWS 
further simplifies the control rod insertion process, and in order 
to evaluate it, the staff followed the guidelines of Standard Review 
Plan Section 15.4.9, and referred to General Design Criterion 28 of 
Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 as its regulatory requirement. The TSTF 
stated the improved BPWS provides the following benefits: (1) Allows 
the plant to reach the all-rods-in condition prior to significant 
reactor cool down, which reduces the potential for re-criticality as 
the reactor cools down; (2) reduces the potential for an operator 
reactivity control error by reducing the total number of control rod 
manipulations; (3) minimizes the need for manual scrams during plant 
shutdowns, resulting in less wear on control rod drive (CRD) system 
components and CRD mechanisms; and, (4) eliminates unnecessary 
control rod manipulations at low power, resulting in less wear on 
reactor manual control and CRD system components. The addition of 
procedural requirements and verifications specified in NEDO-33091-A, 
along with the proper use of the BPWS will prevent a control rod 
drop accident (CRDA) from occurring while power is below the low 
power setpoint (LPSP). The net change to the margin of safety is 
insignificant. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.


[[Page 37250]]


    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for Licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of Amendment Request: May 4, 2009.
    Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment would 
delete the working hours restrictions in paragraph d of Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.2.2, ``Unit Staff.'' The restrictions would be 
deleted because they are superseded by Title 10 of Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) Part 26, Subpart I, consistent with U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) change 
traveler TSTF-511, Revision 0, ``Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions 
from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 CFR part 26.''
    The NRC issued a ``Notice of Availability of Model Safety 
Evaluation, Model No Significant Hazards Determination, and Model 
Application for Licensees That Wish to Adopt TSTF-511, Revision 0, 
`Eliminate Working Hour Restriction From TS 5.2.2 To Support Compliance 
with 10 CFR Part 26' '' in Federal Register on December 30, 2008 (73 FR 
79923). In its application dated May 4, 2009, the licensee affirmed the 
applicability of the model no significant hazards consideration.
    Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    Criterion 1: Does the proposed amendment involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?

     Response: No.
    The proposed change removes TS restrictions on working hours for 
personnel who perform safety related functions. The TS restrictions 
are superseded by the worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR 26. 
Removal of the TS requirements will be performed concurrently with 
the implementation of the 10 CFR 26, subpart I, requirements. The 
proposed change does not impact the physical configuration or 
function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the 
manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected. Worker fatigue is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an assumption in the 
consequence mitigation of any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.

    Criterion 2: Does the proposed amendment create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?

     Response: No.
    The proposed change removes TS restrictions on working hours for 
personnel who perform safety related functions. The TS restrictions 
are superseded by the worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR 26. 
Working hours will continue to be controlled in accordance with NRC 
requirements. The new rule allows for deviations from controls to 
mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to safety or as necessary to 
maintain the security of the facility. This ensures that the new 
rule will not unnecessarily restrict working hours and thereby 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change does not alter the plant configuration, 
require new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

    Criterion 3: Does the proposed amendment involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety?

     Response: No.
    The proposed change removes TS restrictions on working hours for 
personnel who perform safety related functions. The TS restrictions 
are superseded by the worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR 26. The 
proposed change does not involve any physical changes to plant or 
alter the manner in which plant systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not alter 
the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings 
or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety 
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The 
proposed change will not result in plant operation in a 
configuration outside the design basis. The proposed change does not 
adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant 
and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
    Removal of plant-specific TS administrative requirements will 
not reduce a margin of safety because the requirements in 10 CFR 26 
are adequate to ensure that worker fatigue is managed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for Licensee: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    The following notices were previously published as separate 
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were 
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the 
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action 
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the 
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued 
involving no significant hazards consideration.
    For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on 
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period 
of the original notice.

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon 
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North 
Carolina

    Date of Amendment Request: May 29, 2008, as supplemented by letters 
dated November 14 and December 11, 2008.
    Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment would 
transition the fire protection program to a performance-based, risk-
informed one based on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 
Standard 805, ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection For 
Light Water Reactor Generating Plants,'' 2001 Edition, in accordance 
with 10 CFR 50.48(c). NFPA 805 allows the use of performance-based 
methods, such as fire modeling, and risk-informed methods, such as Fire 
Probabilistic Risk Assessment, to demonstrate compliance with the 
nuclear safety performance criteria.
    Date of Publication of Individual Notice in Federal Register: June 
19, 2009 (74 FR 29241).
    Expiration Date of Individual Notice: August 18, 2009.

[[Page 37251]]

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

    Date of Amendment Request: June 3, 2008, as supplemented by letters 
dated November 17, 2008, and April 8 and May 22, 2009.
    Brief Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment 
would revise the Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3) Final Safety Analysis 
Report Sections 5.4.3, ``Structural Design Criteria'' and 5.4.5.3, 
``Missile Analysis,'' to include a statement regarding the design of 
the east wall of the CR-3 Auxiliary Building. The amendment would 
change the methodology used to qualify the east wall of the Auxiliary 
Building. The current methodology used the methods in American Concrete 
Institute (ACI) Standard 318-63, ``Building Code Requirements for 
Reinforced Concrete,'' June 1963. The proposed methodology is based on 
ACI 349-97, ``Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete 
Structures,'' as endorsed by NRC's Standard Review Plan (NUREG 0800), 
Revision 2--March 2007, Section 3.8.4 ``Other Seismic Category 1 
Structures.''
    Date of Publication of Individual Notice in Federal Register: June 
23, 2008 (74 FR 29732).
    Expiration Date of Individual Notice: August 24, 2009.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing in connection with these 
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from 
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, 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.

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon 
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North 
Carolina

    Date of Application for Amendment: February 26, 2009.
    Brief Description of Amendment: The proposed amendment would delete 
the Technical Specifications (TS) requirements related to hydrogen 
recombiners and hydrogen monitors. The proposed TS changes support 
implementation of the revisions to 10 CFR 50.44, ``Standards for 
Combustible Gas Control System in Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactors,'' 
which became effective on October 16, 2003. These changes are 
consistent with Revision 1 of the NRC-approved Technical Specifications 
Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler 
TSTF-447, ``Elimination of Hydrogen Recombiners and Change to Hydrogen 
and Oxygen Monitors.'' This technical specification improvement was 
initially made available in the Federal Register by the NRC on 
September 25, 2003 (68 FR 55416).
    Date of Issuance: July 2, 2009.
    Effective Date: Effective as of the date of issuance and shall be 
implemented within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 131.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: The amendment 
revises the Technical Specifications and Facility Operating License.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: June 2, 2009 (74 FR 
26431). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final 
NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated July 2, 
2009.
    Public Comments Requested as to Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration (NSHC): No.

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

    Date of Application for Amendment: February 24, 2009.
    Brief Description of Amendment: The proposed amendment would revise 
the Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) that 
governs operability testing of the pressure suppression chamber-drywell 
vacuum breakers to incorporate the SR contained within the Standard 
Technical Specifications (STS), NUREG-1433 and delete the SR that 
requires inspection of the pressure suppression chamber-drywell vacuum 
breakers. This requirement is replaced with the STS SR 3.6.1.8.2 to 
perform operability testing within 12 hours after the discharge of 
steam into the suppression chamber from the safety/relief valves or 
following operation that causes any of the vacuum breakers to open.
    Date of Issuance: July 6, 2009.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 238.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the 
License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: April 7, 2009 (74 FR 
15770).
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

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

    Date of Application for Amendment: September 22, 2008, as 
supplemented by letter dated October 31, 2008.
    Brief Description of Amendment: The proposed amendment would 
relocate the contents of the Vermont Yankee (VY) Technical 
Specification relating to the Reactor Building crane to the VY 
Technical Requirements Manual.
    Date of Issuance: July 13, 2009.

[[Page 37252]]

    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 239.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the 
License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 18, 2008 (73 
FR 68454). The supplemental letter dated October 31, 2008, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination. The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 13, 2009.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

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

    Date of Application for Amendment: June 26, 2008, as supplemented 
on January 27 and July 2, 2009.
    Brief Description of Amendment: The amendment revised the MNGP 
Technical Specifications (TS), changing the Required Actions and 
Completion Times in TS 3.5.1, ``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System]--
Operating,'' to allow a 72-hour completion time to restore a low-
pressure ECCS subsystem to operable status after discovery of two low-
pressure ECCS subsystems inoperable.
    Date of Issuance: July 10, 2009.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 162.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: August 12, 2008 (73 FR 
46930). The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and 
did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration 
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal 
Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 10, 2009.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

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

    Date of Application for Amendments: June 26, 2008, as supplemented 
by letters dated August 4, August 26, and November 14, 2008, and 
January 30, February 9, February 20, March 12, and May 4 (2 letters), 
2009.
    Brief Description of Amendments: The amendments revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) for Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 
Plant, Units 1 and 2, to allow the use of Westinghouse 422 VANTAGE+ 
nuclear fuel and make changes to certain references in the Design 
Features section of the TSs.
    Date of Issuance: July 1, 2009.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 192, 181.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: September 23, 2008 (73 
FR 54866). The supplemental letters contained clarifying information 
and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration 
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal 
Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 1, 2009.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of Application for Amendments: February 20, 2009.
    Brief Description of Amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specifications (TS) requirements related to control room envelope 
habitability in TS 3.7.3, ``Plant Systems Control Room Emergency 
Outside Air Supply (CREOAS) System,'' and TS Section 5.5, 
``Administrative Controls Programs and Manuals.''
    Date of Issuance: July 6, 2009.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
180 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 252 for Unit 1 and 232 for Unit 2.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments 
revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: April 21, 2009 (74 FR 
18256).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 6, 2009.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of Application for Amendments: March 24, 2009.
    Brief Description of Amendments: The amendments deleted Technical 
Specification (TS) Section 5.2.2.e, which is superseded by Title 10 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, ``Fitness For Duty 
Programs,'' Subpart I, ``Managing Fatigue.'' This change is consistent 
with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Revision 0 to 
Technical Specification Task Force Improved Standard Technical 
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-511, ``Eliminate Working Hour 
Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 CFR part 26.''
    Date of Issuance: July 13, 2009.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 253 for Unit 1 and 233 for Unit 2.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments 
revised the Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 5, 2009, (74 FR 
20752). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 13, 2009.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of July 2009.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-17699 Filed 7-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P