Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 40233-40243 [E9-18946]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40233-40243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18946]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0347]


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 16, 2009, to July 29, 2009. The last 
biweekly notice was published on July 28, 2009 (74 FR 37245).

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

[[Page 40234]]

any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed 
determination for each amendment request is shown below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking 
and Directives Branch (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

[[Page 40235]]

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 using the agency's adjudicatory e-
filing system 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.

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan

    Date of amendment request: June 10, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
amend the Fermi 2 Plant Operating License, Appendix A, Technical 
Specifications (TS) to revise Technical Specification Table 3.3.8.1-1, 
Function 2 (Degraded Voltage). The change identifies an additional time 
delay as a result of a plant modification to address the backfit issues 
discussed in Reference 3. Specifically, this proposed amendment adds a 
new time delay logic associated with Function 2 for a degraded voltage 
concurrent with a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). This will bring 
Fermi 2 into full compliance with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, General 
Design Criterion (GDC)-17, ``Electric Power Systems.''
    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 change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Providing the additional logic ensures the timely transfer of 
plant safety system loads to the Emergency Diesel Generators in the 
event sustained degraded bus voltage is present with a Loss of 
Coolant Accident (LOCA) signal. This ensures that Emergency Core 
Cooling System (ECCS) equipment is powered from the emergency diesel 
generators in a timely manner. This change is needed to bring Fermi 
2 into full compliance with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, General 
Design Criterion-17, ``Electric Power Systems,'' and to meet the 
requirements of NUREG-0800 Rev. 2, Branch Technical Position (BTP) 
Power Systems Branch (PSB)-1. The shorter time delay supports the 
time assumed in the accident analysis for water injection into the 
reactor vessel under degraded voltage conditions. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of

[[Page 40236]]

accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change does not affect any of the current degraded 
voltage logic schemes or any other equipment provided to mitigate 
accidents. It utilizes existing logic systems to isolate safety 
buses from the grid and repower those safety buses using the onsite 
emergency power system. The change adds logic to ensure that in the 
case of a sustained degraded voltage condition concurrent with a 
LOCA signal, the safety electrical power buses will be transferred 
from the offsite power system to the onsite power system in a timely 
manner to ensure water is injected into the reactor vessel in the 
time assumed and evaluated in the accident analysis. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.
    This proposed change implements a new design for a reduced time 
delay to isolate safety buses from offsite power if a Loss of 
Coolant Accident were to occur concurrent with a sustained degraded 
voltage condition. This ensures that emergency core cooling system 
pumps inject water into the reactor vessel within the time assumed 
and evaluated in the accident analysis, consistent with the 
requirements of BTP PSB-1 section B.1.b. and 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix A, General Design Criterion-17, ``Electric Power Systems.'' 
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: David G. Pettinari, Legal Department, 688 
WCB, Detroit Edison Company, 2000 2nd Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226-
1279.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, 
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: February 27, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Technical Specifications to be consistent with Revision 0 of 
Technical Specification Task force (TSTF) TSTF 511, ``Eliminate Working 
Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 CFR [Code 
of Federal Regulations] part 26.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    Criterion 1: The proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. Removal of the 
Technical Specification requirements will be performed concurrently 
with the implementation of the 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, 
requirements. The proposed change does not impact the physical 
configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue is not an 
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Worker fatigue is 
not an assumption in the consequence mitigation of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Criterion 2: The proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. Working hours will 
continue to be controlled in accordance with NRC requirements. The 
new rule allows for deviations from controls to mitigate or prevent 
a condition adverse to safety or as necessary to maintain the 
security of the facility. This ensures that the new rule will not 
unnecessarily restrict working hours and thereby create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change does not alter the plant configuration, 
require new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    Criterion 3: The proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. The proposed change 
does not involve any physical changes to plant or alter the manner 
in which plant systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, 
or inspected. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which 
safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting 
conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis 
acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed 
change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside 
the design basis. The proposed change does not adversely affect 
systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 
the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
    Removal of plant-specific Technical Specification administrative 
requirements will not reduce a margin of safety because the 
requirements in 10 CFR part 26 are adequate to ensure that worker 
fatigue is managed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Associate General 
Counsel and Managing Attorney, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 526 South 
Church Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 27, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Technical Specifications to be consistent with Revision 0 of 
Technical Specification Task force (TSTF) TSTF 511, ``Eliminate Working 
Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 CFR [Code 
of Federal Regulations] part 26.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, 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

[[Page 40237]]

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

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Associate General 
Counsel and Managing Attorney, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 526 South 
Church Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: February 27, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Technical Specifications to be consistent with Revision 0 of 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) TSTF 511, ``Eliminate Working 
Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 CFR [Code 
of Federal Regulations] part 26.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:
    Criterion 1: The proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. Removal of the 
Technical Specification requirements will be performed concurrently 
with the implementation of the 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, 
requirements. The proposed change does not impact the physical 
configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue is not an 
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Worker fatigue is 
not an assumption in the consequence mitigation of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Criterion 2: The proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. Working hours will 
continue to be controlled in accordance with NRC requirements. The 
new rule allows for deviations from controls to mitigate or prevent 
a condition adverse to safety or as necessary to maintain the 
security of the facility. This ensures that the new rule will not 
unnecessarily restrict working hours and thereby create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change does not alter the plant configuration, 
require new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    Criterion 3: The proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions 
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. 
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the 
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. The proposed change 
does not involve any physical changes to plant or alter the manner 
in which plant systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, 
or inspected. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which 
safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting 
conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis 
acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed 
change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside 
the design basis. The proposed change does not adversely affect 
systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 
the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
    Removal of plant-specific Technical Specification administrative 
requirements will not reduce a margin of safety because the 
requirements in 10 CFR part 26 are adequate to ensure that worker 
fatigue is managed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Associate General 
Counsel and Managing Attorney, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 526 South 
Church Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

[[Page 40238]]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit No.1, DeWitt County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: April 22, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the inservice testing (IST) requirements from the American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) 
Code, Section XI, to the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of 
Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code) and applicable addenda. This change 
would eliminate the ASME Code inconsistency between the IST program and 
the technical specification (TS) as required by Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.55a(f)(5)(ii). Additionally, the 
amendment would extend the applicability of surveillance requirement 
(SR) 3.0.2 provisions to other normal and accelerated frequencies 
specified as 2 years or less in the IST program. Finally, the amendment 
will remove the phrase ``including applicable supports'' from TS 
section 5.5.6. TS section 5.5.6, IST Program, and the associated TS 
Bases would be revised under this TS amendment.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration which is presented below:

    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes revise [technical specification] TS 5.5.6 
for [Clinton Power Station] CPS Unit 1 to conform to the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a, ``Codes and standards,'' paragraph 
(f) regarding the inservice testing of pumps and valves beginning 
with the Third 10-year Interval. The current TS reference the 
[American Society of Mechanical Engineers] ASME Boiler and Pressure 
Vessel Code, Section XI, requirements for the inservice testing of 
ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components, including applicable 
supports. The proposed changes would reference the ASME [Operation 
and Maintenances of Nuclear Power Plants] OM Code, which is 
consistent with 10 CFR 50.55a, paragraph (f), ``Inservice testing 
requirements,'' and approved for use by the NRC. In addition, 
provisions modifying TS 5.5.6, item b, clarify that [surveillance 
requirement] SR 3.0.2 is only applied to those inservice testing 
frequencies of two years or less. The definitions of the frequencies 
are not changed by this license amendment request. The change 
removing the phrase ``including applicable supports'' clarifies the 
scope of components in the [in-service testing] IST Program.
    The proposed changes do not affect any accident initiators, do 
not affect the ability of CPS to successfully respond to previously 
evaluated accidents and do not affect radiological assumptions used 
in the evaluations. Thus, the radiological consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated are not increased.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes revise TS 5.5.6 for CPS Unit 1 to conform 
to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f) regarding the inservice 
testing of pumps and valves beginning with the Third 10-year 
Interval. The current TS reference the ASME Boiler and Pressure 
Vessel Code, section XI, requirements for the inservice testing of 
ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components, including applicable 
supports. The proposed changes would reference the ASME OM Code, 
which is consistent with the 10 CFR 50.55a(f) and approved for use 
by the NRC. In addition, provisions modifying TS 5.5.6, item b, 
clarify that SR 3.0.2 is only applied to those inservice testing 
frequencies of two years or less. The definitions of the frequencies 
are not changed by this license amendment request. The change 
removing the phrase ``including applicable supports'' clarifies the 
scope of components in the IST Program.
    The proposed changes to TS section 5.5.6 do not affect the 
performance of any CPS structure, system, or component credited with 
mitigating any accident previously evaluated and do not introduce 
any new modes of system operation or failure mechanisms. In 
addition, the proposed changes do not revise the frequency or method 
of testing the components covered by the IST program.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes revise TS 5.5.6 for CPS Unit 1 to conform 
to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f) regarding the inservice 
testing of pumps and valves beginning with the Third 10-year 
Interval. The current TS reference the ASME Boiler and Pressure 
Vessel Code, section XI, requirements for the inservice testing of 
ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components, including applicable 
supports. The proposed changes would reference the ASME OM Code, 
which is consistent with the 10 CFR 50.55a(f) and approved for use 
by the NRC. In addition, provisions modifying TS 5.5.6, item b, 
clarify that SR 3.0.2 is only applied to those inservice testing 
frequencies of two years or less. The definitions of the frequencies 
are not changed by this license amendment request. The change 
removing the phrase ``including applicable supports'' clarifies the 
scope of components in the IST Program.
    The proposed changes do not modify the safety limits or 
setpoints at which proactive actions are initiated and do not change 
the requirements governing operation or availability of safety 
equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety.
    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: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. Campbell.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 19, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
adopt a new analysis of a large break loss-of-coolant accident (LBLOCA) 
for CNP-2. The new analysis is performed using the NRC-approved 
methodology set forth in Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP-16009-P-A, 
``Realistic Large-Break LOCA Evaluation Methodology Using the Automated 
Statistical Treatment of Uncertainty Method (ASTRUM).'' The licensee 
proposed to endorse this methodology by a revision to Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).''
    The licensee is also requesting NRC approval to revise TS 3.4.1, 
``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure, Temperature, and Flow 
Departure from Nucleate Boiling Limits,'' to change the minimum reactor 
coolant system (RCS) total flow rate from 366,400 to 354,000 gallons 
per minute (gpm). The current value is a minimum measured flow value 
which includes allowances for flow uncertainty. Current practice is 
that the thermal design flow value, which does not include allowances 
for flow measurement uncertainty, be specified in TSs. The minimum 
measured flow is specified in the COLR. That value is currently 354,000 
gpm and is also reflected in the new LBLOCA analyses.
    The licensee also proposes to amend TS 3.5.2, ``ECCS--Operating.'' 
Condition D allows the unit to be in Mode 1, 2, or 3 for an unlimited 
amount of time if a Safety Injection (SI) system cross-tie valve is 
closed, provided that thermal power is reduced to less than or

[[Page 40239]]

equal to a specified value. The new LBLOCA analysis being proposed does 
not address a condition in which an SI cross-tie valve is closed. 
Therefore, the allowance provided by Condition D will be deleted, as 
well as reference to Condition D in TS 3.5.2, Conditions A and C.
    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 of occurrence or Consequences of an Accident 
Previously Evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The current minimum departure from nucleate boiling ratio 
Technical Specification (TS) specify a minimum measured flow value 
in the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) total flow requirement. I&M is 
proposing to replace this minimum measured flow value with a thermal 
design flow value. The current minimum departure from nucleate 
boiling ratio TS also require that RCS total flow meet the 
requirements in the Core Operating Limits Report (CORL). The COLR 
specifies the minimum measured flow value. Consequently, the minimum 
measured flow value will continue to be met. This proposed change 
does not alter any system or actual flow value.
    I&M is proposing to delete a TS provision that allows the unit 
to operate for an unlimited amount of time with a Safety Injection 
(SI) system cross tie valve closed, provided that thermal power is 
reduced. As discussed below, I&M is proposing to adopt a new large 
break loss-of-coolant accident (LBLOCA) analysis. The new analysis 
does not evaluate plant operation with an SI system cross-tie valve 
closed. The position of the SI system cross connect valve does not 
affect the likelihood of an accident. This proposed change will 
assure the plant will be operated within the new LBLOCA analysis.
    I&M is proposing to modify the TS such that it identifies the 
new LBLOCA analysis methodology rather than the analysis methodology 
being replaced. This TS change is administrative in that it will 
identify the new methodology following approval of the new 
methodology by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
    I&M is proposing to adopt a new LBLOCA analysis which uses a 
plant-specific adaptation of a best-estimate methodology using 
automated statistical treatment of uncertainty methodology (ASTRUM). 
The analysis is based on the current plant configuration and the 
plant will be operated within the assumptions of the analysis. The 
analysis demonstrates that the current emergency core cooling system 
design performance conforms to the criteria contained in 10 CFR 
50.46.b. An LBLOCA is the only accident involved in this change. No 
changes are being made to any reactor protection system or 
engineered safeguards features actuation system setpoints.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the TS will not result in the operation 
of any structure, system, or component in a new or different manner. 
Adoption of a plant-specific adaptation of the ASTRUM methodology 
will not create any new failure modes that could lead to a different 
kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    It has been shown that the analytical technique used in the 
analysis realistically describes the expected behavior of the Donald 
C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2 reactor system during a postulated 
LBLOCA. Uncertainties have been accounted for as required by 10 CFR 
50.46. A sufficient number of loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCAs) with 
different break sizes, different locations, and other variations in 
properties have been analyzed to provide assurance that the most 
severe postulated LOCAs were analyzed. WCOBRA/TRAC validation with 
the revised downcomer noding has been found acceptable for 
application of the ASTRUM methodology, with no changes to the 
uncertainty treatment. The analysis has demonstrated that all 
acceptance criteria contained in 10 CFR 50.46, Paragraph b, continue 
to be satisfied.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the 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: James M. Petro, Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
Indiana Michigan Power Company, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.

Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego 
County, California

    Date of amendment request: June 10, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would delete those 
portions of the Technical Specifications (TSs) for San Onofre Nuclear 
Generating Station, Units 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 availability of this TS 
improvement was announced in the Federal Register on December 30, 2008 
(73 FR 79923), as part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement 
Process (CLIIP).
    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

[[Page 40240]]

equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis assumptions, add 
any initiators, or effect the function of plant systems or the 
manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, 
or inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

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

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

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
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: Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern 
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, 
California 91770.
    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.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: May 19, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
would revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.9, ``Steam Generator (SG) 
Program,'' to exclude portions of the tubes within the tubesheet from 
periodic SG inspections. In addition, this amendment proposes to revise 
TS 5.6.10, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report'' to remove 
reference to previous interim alternate repair criteria and provide 
reporting requirements specific to the permanent alternate repair 
criteria. The proposed change defines the safety significant portion of 
the tube that must be inspected and repaired.
    Date of publication of individual notice in the Federal Register: 
June 18, 2009 (74 FR 28962).
    Expiration date of individual notice: July 18, 2009 (public 
comments). August 18, 2009 (hearing requests).

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these 
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) The 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from 
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

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

    Date of application for amendments: August 29, 2008, as 
supplemented by letters dated December 3, two letters dated December 
29, December 30, 2008, February 17, February 18, March 10, May 7, and 
June 11, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments revise the 
Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications to 
reflect an increase in the rated thermal power from 2,700 megawatts 
thermal (MWt) to 2,737 MWt (1.38 percent increase). The increase is 
based upon increased feedwater flow measurement accuracy achieved by 
using high-accuracy Caldon CheckPlusTM Leading Edge Flow 
Meter ultrasonic flow measurement instrumentation.
    Date of issuance: July 22, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance. Unit No. 1 shall be 
implemented within 180 days following completion of the 2009 refueling 
outage and Unit No. 2 shall be implemented within 180 days following 
completion of the 2010 refueling outage.
    Amendment Nos.: 291 and 267.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69: 
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.

[[Page 40241]]

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR 
65688). The letters dated December 3, two letters dated December 29, 
December 30, 2008, February 17, February 18, March 10, May 7, and June 
11, 2009, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 22, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: March 30, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The changes deleted those portions 
of Technical Specifications (TSs) superseded by Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 26, subpart I, consistent with U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission-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.''
    Date of issuance: July 28, 2009.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by October 1, 2009.
    Amendment No.: 213.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 5, 2009 (74 FR 
20743).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of application for amendment: August 21, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 6.5.16, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing 
Program,'' to allow a one-time extension to the 10-year frequency for 
next containment integrated leakage rate test (ILRT) or Type A test at 
the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2. The ILRT is required to be 
performed every 10 years. The amendment permitted the existing ILRT 
frequency to be extended from 10 years (120 months) to 135 months.
    Date of issuance: July 20, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 284.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications/license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR 
65694).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 20, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 (Braidwood), Will County, Illinois

Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 
(Byron), Ogle County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: July 29, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments remove time, cycle, 
or modification-related items from the operating licenses (OLs) and 
technical specifications (TSs) at both stations. Additionally, the 
amendments correct typographical errors introduced into the TSs at both 
stations in previous amendments. The time, cycle, or modification-
related items have been implemented or superseded, are no longer 
applicable, and no longer need to be maintained in their associated OLs 
or TSs.
    Date of issuance: July 22, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: Braidwood Unit 1-160; Braidwood Unit 2-160; Byron 
Unit No. 1-165; and Byron Unit No. 2-165.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and NPF-66: 
The amendments revise the TSs and Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (73 
FR 52417).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 22, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

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

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

    Date of application for amendments: March 25, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments delete paragraph d 
of TS 5.2.2, ``Unit Staff,'' for BVPS and DBNPS, and paragraph e for 
PNPP. The application is consistent with NRC-approved Revision 0 to 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical 
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-511, ``Eliminate Working Hour 
Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 CFR part 26.'' 
The availability of this TS improvement was announced in the Federal 
Register (FR) on December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79923) as part of the 
Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process.
    Date of issuance: July 16, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented by September 30, 2009.
    Amendment Nos.: 284, 169, 280, 152.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66, NPF-73, NPF-3, and NPF-58: 
The amendments revised the Technical Specifications/License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 5, 2009 (74 FR 
20747).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 16, 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: June 3, 2008, as supplemented on 
November 17, 2008, and by letters dated April 8 and May 22, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendm