Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 46239-46247 [E9-21389]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46239-46247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21389]



[[Page 46239]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0388]


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 August 13, 2009, to August 26, 2009. The 
last biweekly notice was published on August 25, 2009 (74 FR 42926).

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 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

[[Page 46240]]

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 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 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.

[[Page 46241]]

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone 
Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: July 13, 2007, as supplemented July 13, 
September 12, November 19, December 13, and December 17, 2007; January 
10 (4 letters), January 11 (4 letters), January 14, January 18 (5 
letters), January 31, February 25 (2 letters), March 5, and September 
30, 2008; March 5 and March 23, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment 
request would revise the Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 (MPS3) 
spent fuel pool (SFP) storage requirements.
    The July 13, 2007 license amendment request proposed a stretch 
power uprate (SPU) of MPS3. Included in a supplement dated July 13, 
2007, was a request to amend the MPS3 SFP storage requirements. The 
July 13, 2007 request was noticed in the Federal Register on January 
15, 2008 (73 FR 2549). By letter dated March 5, 2008, Dominion Nuclear 
Connecticut, Inc. (DNC) separated the MPS3 SFP storage requirements 
request from the MPS3 SPU request.
    The request to revise the MPS3 SFP storage requirements is being 
re-noticed using the original significant hazards consideration, 
specific to the request to revise the SFP storage requirements, as 
provided by DNC in the July 13, 2007 license amendment request.
    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:

    6.1.11.1 [Do the proposed changes] [i]nvolve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated[?]
    [Response: No]
    As discussed in LR [license report] Section 2.8.6.2 [Spent Fuel 
Storage] and Westinghouse report WCAP-16721-NP ``Spent Fuel 
Criticality Safety Analysis,'' revised spent fuel pool criticality 
analyses were performed to take into account the potential for more 
reactive fuel at SPU conditions. There are three different regions 
defined in the MPS3 spent fuel pool.
     Region 1--350 storage locations
     Region 2--673 storage locations
     Region 3--756 storage locations
    Because of the potential for requiring more fresh assemblies to 
be loaded in the core every cycle, some of the assemblies to be 
discharged to the spent fuel pool may not have sufficient burnup to 
meet the requirements of Region 2. It may be necessary to 
temporarily store the discharge assemblies in Region 1. To limit the 
time that these assemblies need to be stored in Region 1, additional 
curves have been added to TS [technical specification] Figure 3.9-3 
that specify the burnup limits as a function of enrichment, burnup, 
and decay time. These decay time curves provide assurance that all 
spent fuel pool criticality limits will be met.
    The spent fuel pool criticality analysis also shows that more 
limiting burnup requirements are necessary for Region 3 for the 
assemblies used at the uprate power level. Thus, a new curve is 
being added to address these requirements for Region 3.
    With these changes, the spent fuel pool criticality analysis 
documented in LR Section 2.8.6.2 and WCAP-16721-NP, shows that the 
changes do not increase the consequences of any accident.
    The new TS limitations provide assurance that the spent fuel 
pool will remain subcritical for all future cycles at the SPU 
condition and there is no increase in the probability of a 
criticality accident. Thus, the changes do not significantly 
increase the probability of any analyzed accident.
    6.1.11.2 [Do the proposed changes] [c]reate the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated[?]
    [Response: No]
    The changes will be implemented with existing spent pool racks. 
Thus, no new failure modes are introduced. The proposed additional 
requirements and the SPU fuel criticality analysis provide assurance 
that the spent fuel pool will remain subcritical for all uprate 
cycles. Thus, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different accident.
    6.1.11.3 [Do the proposed changes] [i]nvolve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety[?]
    [Response: No]
    The analysis documented in LR Section 2.8.6.2 and WCAP-16721-NP 
shows that all spent fuel criticality limits are met and that there 
is no significant reduction in the margin of safety for the spent 
fuel pool.

    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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, 
Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: June 30, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.9, ``Ultimate Heat Sink 
(UHS),'' to add additional essential service water (SX) cooling tower 
fan requirements as a function of SX pump discharge temperature to 
reflect the results of a revised analysis for the UHS.
    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 change does not result in any physical changes to 
safety related structures, systems, or components. The UHS itself is 
not an accident initiator; rather, the UHS performs functions to 
mitigate accidents by serving as the heat sink for safety related 
equipment. Consequently, the proposed change does not increase the 
probability of occurrence for any accident previously evaluated.
    The UHS plays a vital role in mitigating the consequences of any 
accident or transient. The proposed changes will ensure that the 
minimum conditions necessary for the UHS to perform its design 
functions will always be met. Engineering calculations demonstrate 
that the SX pump discharge design temperature limit of 100 [deg]F, 
which was assumed as an initial input for the accident analyses, is 
preserved. Consequently, the proposed changes to cooling tower fan 
requirements, relative to the SX pump discharge temperature, do not 
increase the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The supporting analyses for the proposed change do not involve a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated. The proposed limits on maximum SX pump discharge 
temperature, and the proposed fan requirements, are within the 
design capabilities of the UHS and ensure that the UHS will always 
be in a condition to perform its design function in the event of an 
accident or transient. New and revised analyses that support the 
requested TS changes ensure the full qualification of the UHS. No 
changes are being made to the physical design of the UHS such that 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident would be 
created. Consequently, these changes do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from those previously 
evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?

[[Page 46242]]

    Response: No.
    The proposed limits on SX pump discharge maximum temperature are 
based on the results of new and revised design analyses that ensure 
that the margin of safety is not reduced. The new limits on 
temperature will ensure that, under the most limiting accident or 
transient scenario, cooling water will meet the accident analyses SX 
design temperature limit of 100 [deg]F.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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 Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. Campbell.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: March 26, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the technical specification (TS) 3.5.1, ``Emergency Core Cooling 
System (ECCS) Operating,'' to delete the existing allowance associated 
with the automatic depressurization system (ADS) accumulator backup 
compressed gas system that currently allows a completion time of 72 
hours to restore bottle pressure to >= 500 psig.
    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 TS change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The ADS 
accumulator backup compressed gas system is designed to maintain the 
availability of a mitigation system. It is not recognized as the 
initiator of any accident. The failure of the ADS accumulator backup 
compressed gas system will not propagate into the onset of an 
analyzed event. As such, this proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    This proposed change does not involve a significant increase in 
the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Deleting the 
existing allowance associated with the inoperability of the ADS 
accumulator backup compressed gas system provides assurance that the 
design function of the ADS SRVs [safety relief valves] assumed in 
the safety analyses will be achieved under all postulated 
conditions. The change that deletes the existing allowable 
completion time for an inoperable ADS accumulator backup compressed 
gas system is in the conservative direction and will revise the 
existing non-conservative TS to be consistent with existing 
licensing requirements for multiple inoperable ADS valves. 
Therefore, this proposed change will not increase the consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated in the UFSAR [updated final 
safety analysis report].
    Based on the above information, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed TS change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change does not affect the control parameters 
governing unit operation or the response of plant equipment to 
transient conditions. The proposed change does involve the addition 
of a reserve nitrogen bottle that can be valved in during bottle 
replacement, however, during the short duration the reserve nitrogen 
bottle will be valved in the required minimum bottle pressure will 
be maintained at 1100 psig. The reserve bottle pressure requirement 
for this short duration ensures that the safety function of the ADS 
SRVs continues to be met.
    Deleting the existing allowance associated with the 
inoperability of the ADS accumulator backup compressed gas system 
does not introduce any new or different modes of plant operation, 
nor does it affect the operational characteristics of any safety-
related equipment or systems; as such, no new failure modes are 
being introduced. The proposed action provides assurance that the 
design function of the ADS SRVs assumed in the safety analyses will 
be achieved; and, therefore the LCO [limiting condition for 
operation] will be met. The change that deletes the existing 
allowable completion time for an inoperable ADS accumulator backup 
compressed gas system is in the conservative direction and will 
revise the existing non-conservative TS to be consistent with 
existing licensing requirements for multiple inoperable ADS valves.
    Based on the above information, the proposed change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed TS change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The margin of safety is determined by the design and 
qualification of the plant equipment, the operation of the plant 
within analyzed limits, and the point at which protective or 
mitigative actions are initiated. The modified TS and TRM [Technical 
Requirements Manual] will ensure sufficient nitrogen supply exists 
to support both the LLS [low-low setpoint] and ADS function of the 
SRVs plus assumed design leakage with no operator action.
    The change that deletes the existing allowable completion time 
for an inoperable ADS accumulator backup compressed gas system is in 
the conservative direction and will revise the existing non-
conservative TS to be consistent with existing licensing 
requirements for multiple inoperable ADS valves.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. Campbell.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 6, 2008, as revised by letter 
dated August 4, 2009.
    Description of amendments request: The proposed change would revise 
the Crystal River Unit 3 Improved Technical Specifications Surveillance 
Requirements (SRs); SR 3.8.1.2, SR 3.8.1.6, and SR 3.8.1.10 to restrict 
the voltage and frequency limits for all emergency diesel generator 
(EDG) starts. The steady state voltage limits would be revised to be 
more restrictive (plus or minus 2 percent of the nominal voltage) to 
accurately reflect the appropriate calculation and the way the plant is 
operated and tested. The steady state frequency limits will be revised 
to be more restrictive (plus or minus 1 percent for all EDG starts) to 
ensure compliance with the plant design bases and the way the plant is 
operated. Additionally, SR 3.8.1.6 will be revised to clarify that the 
10-second start verifies the capability of the EDG to pick up load, and 
is not the steady state condition. These changes will ensure that the 
EDGs are capable of supplying power, with the correct voltage and 
frequency, to the required electrical loads.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the

[[Page 46243]]

issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below:

    1. Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The LAR [license amendment request] proposes to provide more 
restrictive voltage and frequency limits for the Emergency Diesel 
Generators (EDGs) steady state operation. The voltage band is going 
from a range of greater than or equal to 3933 V [volts] but less 
than or equal to 4400 V, to greater than or equal to 4077 V but less 
than or equal to 4243 V. The proposed limits are plus or minus 2% 
[percent] around the nominal safety-related bus voltage of 4160 V. 
The Frequency Limits are going from a 2% tolerance band to a 1% 
tolerance band around the nominal frequency of 60 Hz [hertz] (59.4 
Hz to 60.6 Hz) for all starts of the EDGs, at steady state 
conditions. For fast starts, the voltage and frequency limits at 
less than or equal to ten seconds will be consistent with the EDG 
ready matrix setpoints (90.8% voltage and 98% frequency) to allow 
for the overshoot and undershoot condition that exists while the 
voltage and frequency values converge on steady state conditions.
    The EDGs are a safety-related system that functions to mitigate 
the impact of an accident with a concurrent loss of offsite power. A 
loss of offsite power is typically a significant contributor to 
postulated plant risk and, as such, onsite AC generators have to be 
maintained available and reliable in the event of a loss of offsite 
power event. The EDGs are not initiators for any analyzed accident, 
therefore; the probability for an accident that was previously 
evaluated is not increased by this change. The revised, voltage and 
frequency limits will ensure the EDGs will remain capable of 
performing their design function.
    The consequences of an accident refer to the impact on both 
plant personnel and the public from any radiological release 
associated with the accident. The EDG supports equipment that is 
supposed to preclude any radiological release. More restrictive 
voltage and frequency limits for the output of the EDG restores 
design margin, and provides assurance that the equipment supplied by 
the EDG will operate correctly and within the assumed timeframe to 
perform their mitigating functions.
    Until the proposed Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3) Improved 
Technical Specifications (ITS) EDG voltage and frequency limits are 
approved by the NRC, administratively controlled limits have been 
established in accordance with NRC Administrative Letter 98-10 to 
ensure all EDG mitigation functions will be performed, per design, 
in the event of a loss of offsite power. These administrative limits 
have been determined as acceptable and have been incorporated into 
the surveillance test procedures under the provisions of'10 CFR 
50.59. Periodic testing has been performed with acceptable results. 
Since EDGs are mitigating components and are not initiators for any 
analyzed accident, no increased probability of an accident can 
occur. Since administrative limits will ensure the EDGs will perform 
as designed, consequences will not be significantly affected.
    2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Administrative voltage limits were established using verified 
design calculations and the guidance of NRC Administrative Letter 
98-10. These administrative limits will ensure the EDGs will perform 
as designed. No new configuration is established by this change. The 
administrative limits for the EDG frequency were determined to be 
sufficient to account for measurement and other uncertainties.
    The proposed amendment will place the administrative limits into 
the CR-3 ITS. The more restrictive voltage and frequency limits will 
provide additional assurance that the EDG can provide the necessary 
power to supply the required safety-related loads during an analyzed 
accident. The proposed ITS voltage and frequency limits restore the 
EDG capability to those analyzed by Engineering calculation. No new 
configuration is established. Therefore, no new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated can be created.
    3. Does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    The LAR proposes to provide more restrictive steady state 
voltage and frequency limits for the EDGs. The change in the 
acceptance criteria for specific surveillance testing provides 
assurance that the EDGs will be capable of performing their design 
function. Previous test history has shown that the new limits are 
well within the capability of the EDGs and are repeatable. The ``as-
left'' settings for voltage and frequency will be adjusted such that 
they remain within a tight band and this ensures that the ``as-
found'' settings will be in an acceptable tolerance band.
    The proposed ITS limits on voltage and frequency will ensure 
that the EDG will be able to perform all design functions assumed in 
the accident analyses. Administrative limits are in place to ensure 
these parameters remain within analyzed limits. As such, 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 T. Conley, Associate General Counsel 
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office 
Box 1551, Raleigh, NC 27602.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

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 amendment request: June 24, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
modify Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to control 
room envelope (CRE) habitability in accordance with Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-448 Revision 3, ``Control 
Room Habitability,'' per the consolidated line item improvement process 
(CLIIP).
    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued a notice 
of opportunity for comment in the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 
(71 FR 61075), on possible amendments concerning this CLIIP, including 
a model safety evaluation and a model no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC) determination. The NRC staff subsequently issued a 
notice of availability of the models for referencing in license 
amendment applications in the Federal Register on January 17, 2007 (72 
FR 2022), as part of the CLIIP. In its application dated June 24, 2009, 
the licensee affirmed the applicability of the following determination.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:

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

    The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change 
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency 
ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to 
minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE 
atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents 
previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency 
ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency 
ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident 
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify 
the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to 
assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the

[[Page 46244]]

CRE emergency ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating 
radiological consequences to CRE occupants during accident 
conditions, and that the CRE emergency ventilation system will 
perform as assumed in the consequence analyses of design basis 
accidents. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.

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

    The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The 
proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of 
the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during 
accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of 
design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No 
new or different accidents result from performing the new 
surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does 
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed 
change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is 
consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, 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 does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety 
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an 
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to 
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 
shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, 
Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

    Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 
and 2, Will County, Illinois.
    Date of amendment request: June 24, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
would permanently revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.9, ``Steam 
Generator (SG) Program,'' to exclude portions of the tube below the top 
of the SG tubesheet from periodic SG tube inspections and plugging or 
repair. In addition, this amendment would revise the wording of 
reporting requirements in TS 5.6.9, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube 
Inspection Report.'' The proposed changes only affect Byron, Unit No. 
2, and Braidwood, Unit 2; however, this action is docketed for both 
Byron and Braidwood units because the TS are common to Units 1 and 2.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: July 
31, 2009 (74 FR 38234).
    Expiration date of individual notice: August 30, 2009 (public 
comment); September 29, 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 O1F21, 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.

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

    Date of application for amendment: August 29, 2008, as supplemented 
by letters dated March 5 and August 7, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' by 
updating the list of references in TS 5.6.5.b to reflect the current 
analytical methods used to determine the core

[[Page 46245]]

operating limits for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, 
and 3.
    Date of issuance: August 26, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 1-174; Unit 2-174; Unit 3-174.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The 
amendment revised the Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR 
65688). The supplemental letters dated March 5 and August 7, 2009, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 26, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: August 21, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments implement Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Changes Travelers TSTF-479, Revision 0, 
``Changes to Reflect Revision of [Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations] 10 CFR 50.55a,'' and TSTF-497, Revision 0, ``Limit 
Inservice Testing [IST] Program SR [Surveillance Requirements] 3.0.2 
Application to Frequencies of 2 Years or Less.'' TSTF-479 and TSTF-497 
revise the technical specification's Administrative Controls section 
pertaining to requirements for the IST Program, consistent with the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves which are 
classified as American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Boiler 
and Pressure Vessel Code Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3.
    Date of issuance: August 17, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 252 and 232.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 3, 2009 (74 FR 
18253).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 17, 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: September 9, 2008, as 
supplemented by letter dated April 24, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment modified Technical 
Specification 3.3.6.1, ``Primary Containment Isolation 
Instrumentation,'' to lower the Group 1 isolation valves reactor water 
level isolation signal from Level 2 to Level 1.
    Date of issuance: August 18, 2009.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to entry into Mode 2 during startup from refueling outage 20.
    Amendment No.: 214.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 2, 2008 (73 FR 
73353). The supplemental letter dated April 24, 2009, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 18, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: March 5, 2009, as supplemented 
by letters dated April 17 and June 22, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment updates the reactor 
vessel heatup and cooldown limit curves and the low-temperature over-
pressure protection curves.
    Date of issuance: August 17, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 262.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-26: The amendment revised the 
License and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 19, 2009 (74 FR 
23443). The April 17 and June 22, 2009, supplements provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 17, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 16, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment changes the name 
of the Licensee and Co-owner from ``FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC'' to 
``NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC.''
    Date of issuance: August 21, 2009.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 122.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the 
License, Appendix B--Environmental Protection Plan, and Appendix C--
Additional Conditions.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 2, 2009 (74 FR 
26434).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 21, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (NMP2), Oswego County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: March 9, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical 
Specification (TS) testing frequency for the Surveillance Requirement 
(SR) in TS 3.1.4, ``Control Rod Scram Times,'' by extending the 
frequency of SR 3.1.4.2, from ``120 days cumulative operation in Mode 
1'' to ``200 days cumulative operation in Mode 1.'' This change is 
based on Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) 
Change Traveler, TSTF-460-A, Revision 0, ``Control Rod Scram Time 
Testing Frequency.'' These changes were described in a Notice of 
Availability for Consolidated Line Item

[[Page 46246]]

Improvement Process published in the Federal Register on August 23, 
2004 (69 FR 51864).
    Date of issuance: August 19, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
60 days.
    Amendment No.: 132.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-069: The amendment 
revises the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 19, 2009 (74 FR 
23447).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: April 15, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the MNGP 
Technical Specifications (TS), deleting paragraph d (regarding 
limitation of working hours of personnel who perform safety-related 
functions) of TS 5.2.2, ``Unit Staff.''
    Date of issuance: August 19, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by October 1, 2009.
    Amendment No.: 163.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 16, 2009 (74 FR 
28578).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 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: April 15, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments delete those 
portions of the Technical Specifications superseded by Title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations Part 26, Subpart I.
    Date of issuance: August 19, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by October 1, 2009.
    Amendment Nos.: 193, 182.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 16, 2009 (74 FR 
28578).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: May 5, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the DCPP 
Technical Specification (TS) 5.2.2, ``Unit Staff,'' to eliminate 
working hour restrictions in paragraph d of TS 5.2.2 to support 
compliance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 
Part 26. The change is consistent with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC)-approved Revision 0 to TS Task Force (TSTF) Improved 
Technical Specification change traveler, TSTF-511, ``Eliminate Working 
Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 CFR Part 
26.'' The availability of this TS improvement was announced in the 
Federal Register on December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79923), as part of the 
consolidated line item improvement process.
    Date of issuance: August 19, 2009.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by October 1, 2009.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-206; Unit 2-207.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 16, 2009 (74 FR 
28579).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna 
Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: December 4, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical 
Specifications to allow refueling operations with both containment 
personnel interlock doors to be open under administrative control 
consistent with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Travelers 
TSTF-68 and TSTF-312. In support of this amendment request, the 
licensee recalculated the fuel gas gap fractions for its design-basis 
fuel handling accident and has justified a shorter decay time of 72 
hours utilizing the alternative source term methodology.
    Date of issuance: August 12, 2009
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
30 days.
    Amendment No.: 107
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: Amendment revised 
the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 10, 2009 (74 FR 
10311)
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 12, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna 
Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: March 23, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment deletes paragraph d 
of Technical Specification (TS) 5.2.2, ``Plant Staff.'' The amendment 
is consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Revision 0 to 
the 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 
[Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations] 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.
    Date of issuance: August 12, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented with 
the implementation of the new 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I requirements.
    Amendment No.: 108.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: Amendment 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 amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 12, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 46247]]

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

    Date of amendment request: March 3, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TS) to eliminate working hour restrictions 
from TS 6.2.2 to support compliance with Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26. The request is consistent with 
the guidance contained in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-
approved TS 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 improvement was announced in the Federal 
Register on December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79923), as part of the 
Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process.
    Date of issuance: August 18, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by October 1, 2009.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-192; Unit 2-180.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 16, 2009 (74 FR 
28579).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 18, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: March 27, 2008, as supplemented 
by letters dated December 19, 2008, February 9, April 24, and May 26, 
2009.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments revised the 
technical specifications (TSs) to adopt the content of Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF448, Revision 3, 
``Control Room Habitability.'' Specifically, the amendments revised TS 
3.7.3, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation (CREV) System,'' and added 
TS 5.5.13, ``Control Room Envelope Habitability Program.'' The 
amendments also added a new license condition regarding initial 
performance of the new surveillance and assessment requirements of the 
revised TSs.
    Date of issuance: August 18, 2009.
    Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 275, 302, and 261.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: 
Amendments revised the Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 26, 2008 (73 FR 
50362) and revised on January 27, 2009 (74 FR 4775). The supplements 
dated February 9, April 24, and May 26, 2009, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 18, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: October 21, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant's Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to require 
an inspection of each ice condenser within 24 hours of experiencing a 
seismic event greater than or equal to an operating basis earthquake 
(i.e., \1/2\ of a safe shutdown earthquake) within the 5-week period 
after ice basket repleni