Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 68867-68872 [E9-30675]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 29, 2009 / Notices III. Data NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice: (09—112)] Notice of Information Collection AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of information collection. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Lori Parker, Mail Code JF, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546– 0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Lori Parker, NASA PRA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., Mail Code JF, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–1351, lori.parker-1@nasa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES I. Abstract The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is requesting extension of an existing collection, NASA Mentor-Protege Program Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns Report, that is used ´ ´ to help NASA monitor mentor-protege performance and progress in accordance ´ ´ with the mentor-protege agreement. Respondents will be for—profit small disadvantaged businesses. The NASA ´ ´ Mentor-Protege Program is designed to provide incentives for NASA prime contractors to assist small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), minority institutions (MIs), and women-owned small business (WOSB) concerns, in enhancing their capabilities to perform NASA contracts and subcontracts. II. Method of Collection NASA uses electronic methods to collect information from collection respondents. VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:02 Dec 28, 2009 Jkt 220001 Title: NASA Mentor-Protege ProgramSmall Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns Report. OMB Number: 2700–0078. Type of review: Extension of a currently approved collection. Number of respondents: 20. Affected Public: Business or other forprofit: 10. Estimated Time Per Response: 1.5 hours. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 30. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA’s estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. Lori Parker, NASA PRA Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E9–30747 Filed 12–28–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510–13–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2009–0567] 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. PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 68867 This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from December 3, 2009, to December 16, 2009. The last biweekly notice was published on December 15, 2009 (74 FR 66381). 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 60day 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– E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM 29DEN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 68868 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 29, 2009 / Notices 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, http://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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:02 Dec 28, 2009 Jkt 220001 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 requestor/ petitioner 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 requestor/petitioner 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 requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner 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 requestor/ petitioner to relief. A requestor/ petitioner 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 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The EFiling 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 participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at (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 (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC’s public Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ which is available on the agency’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software. If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC’s online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web browser plugin from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC’s public Web E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM 29DEN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 29, 2009 / Notices site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 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 E-Filing system also distributes an email 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 by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the NRC Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by e-mail at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at (866) 672–7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. 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, VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:02 Dec 28, 2009 Jkt 220001 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. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC’s electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http:// ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from December 29, 2009. Non-timely filings will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 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, http://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. PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 68869 Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey Date of amendment request: October 30, 2009. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would relocate selected Surveillance Requirement frequencies from the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek) Technical Specifications (TSs) to a licensee-controlled program. This change is based on the NRCapproved Industry Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF–425, ‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control—Risk Informed Technical Specification Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b,’’ Revision 3, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML090850642). Plant-specific deviations from TSTF–425 are proposed to accommodate differences between the Oyster Creek TSs and the model TSs originally used to develop TSTF–425. The NRC staff issued a Notice of Availability for TSTF–425 in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The notice included a model safety evaluation (SE) and a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination. In its application dated October 30, 2009, the licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination which is presented below. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of NSHC is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and components required by the technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM 29DEN1 68870 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 29, 2009 / Notices 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 previously evaluated? Response: No. No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 the margin of safety? Response: No. The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS), since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Exelon will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC approved NEI 04–01, Rev. 1[. The] methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff. Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida Date of amendment request: June 25, 2009. Description of amendment request: Florida Power & Light proposes to revise VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:02 Dec 28, 2009 Jkt 220001 the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 licensing bases to adopt the alternative source term (AST) as allowed in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.67. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. AST calculations have been performed for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 which demonstrate that the dose consequences remain below limits specified in RG 1.183 and 10 CFR 50.67. For the Spent Fuel Cask Drop and the Waste Gas Decay Tank Rupture Events which are not addressed by RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.183, the AST methodology has demonstrated that the dose consequences remain below the limits identified above. The AST calculations are based on the current plant design and operation as modified by the installation of a passive post-LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] recirculation pH control system, relocation and redesign of the control room emergency ventilation intakes, the replacement of the aluminum normal containment cooler fins with copper fins, and for certain events, manual operator actions for initiation of control room emergency ventilation system. These proposed changes to the plant configuration are not accident precursors for any previously evaluated accidents and support mitigation of the dose consequences of previously evaluated accidents. The proposed modification to the plant configuration will be fully qualified to the appropriate design requirements to assure their required function is available for accident mitigation and to assure the function of other equipment required for accident mitigation are not adversely impacted. The use of the AST changes the regulatory assumptions regarding the analytical treatment of the design basis accidents and has no direct effect on the probability of any accident. The AST has been utilized in the analysis of the limiting design basis accidents listed above. The results of the analyses, which include the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS), and the installation of the modifications, demonstrate that the dose consequences of these limiting events are all within regulatory limits. TS 3/4.6.3 Emergency Containment Filtering (ECF) System has been deleted since the dose consequence analyses are within regulatory limits. A new TS is being incorporated to ensure the operability of the Recirculation pH Control System. The remaining TS changes are consistent with, or more restrictive than, the current TS requirements or established precedent. None of the affected systems, components, or programs are related to accident initiators. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes to Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 only affect those systems described above. The proposed Recirculation pH Control System is a passive system that will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed modification to the plant configuration will be fully qualified to the appropriate design requirements to assure their required function is available for accident mitigation and to assure the function of other equipment required for accident mitigation are not adversely impacted. Neither implementation of the AST methodology, establishing more restrictive TS requirements, deleting TS 3/ 4.6.3, nor installing the modifications described above have the capability to introduce any new failure mechanisms or cause any analyzed accident to progress in a different manner. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The proposed implementation of the AST methodology is consistent with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183. For the Spent Fuel Cask Drop and the Waste Gas Decay Tank Rupture Events which are not addressed by RG 1.183, the AST methodology has demonstrated that the dose consequences remain below the limits identified above. With the exception of the deletion of TS 3/ 4.6.3, and the addition of the recirculation pH sump control system, the proposed TS changes are consistent with, or more restrictive than, the current TS requirements or established precedent. The proposed TS requirements and plant modifications will support the AST revisions to the limiting design basis accidents. As such, the current plant margin of safety is preserved. Conservative methodologies, per the guidance of RG 1.183, have been used in performing the accident analyses. The radiological consequences of these accidents are all within the regulatory acceptance criteria associated with the use of the AST methodology. The proposed changes continue to ensure that the doses at the exclusion area and low population zone boundaries and in the Control Room are within the corresponding regulatory limits of RG 1.183 and 10 CFR 50.67. The margin of safety for the radiological limits is set at or below the 10 CFR 50.67 limits. An acceptable margin of safety is inherent in these limits. 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 50.92(c) are satisfied. E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM 29DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 29, 2009 / Notices Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408– 0420. NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272 and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Date of amendment request: September 23, 2009. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to: (1) Delete TS 4.0.5, which pertains to surveillance requirements (SRs) for inservice inspection (ISI) and inservice testing (IST) of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Code) Class 1, 2 and 3 components; (2) add a new TS for the IST Program to Section 6.0, ‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ of the TSs; and (3) change TSs that currently reference TS 4.0.5 to reference the IST Program or ISI Program, as applicable. The new TS for the IST Program, TS 6.8.4.j, will indicate that the program will include testing frequencies applicable to the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code), replacing the current reference to Section XI of the ASME Code specified in TS 4.0.5. In addition, TS 6.8.4.j would revise the requirements, currently contained in TS 4.0.5, regarding the applicability of the surveillance interval extension provisions of SR 4.0.2. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes revise TS 4.0.5, Surveillance Requirements for Inservice Inspections and Testing of ASME Code Components, for consistency with [ ] 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) requirements regarding inservice testing of pumps and valves. The proposed change incorporates revisions to the ASME OM Code and clarifies testing frequency requirements for testing pumps and valves. The proposed change also relocates the ISI and IST Programs consistent with NUREG–1431. The proposed changes do not impact any accident initiators or analyzed events or VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:02 Dec 28, 2009 Jkt 220001 assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. They do not involve the addition or removal of any equipment, or any design changes to the facility. Therefore, the proposed changes do not represent 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 do not involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of an accident of a different kind than previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No The proposed changes revises and relocates TS 4.0.5, Surveillance Requirements for Inservice Inspections and Testing of ASME Code Components, for consistency with (1) the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) regarding the inservice testing of pumps and valves and (2) NUREG– 1431. The proposed change updates references to the ASME OM Code, clarifies testing frequency requirements for testing pumps and valves, and relocates the IST Program to Section 6.0 of TS, and the ISI Program to a licensee controlled document. The safety function of the affected pumps and valves will be maintained; the programs will continue to be implemented with the required regulations and codes. Therefore, this 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: Vincent Zabielski, PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 68871 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 System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http://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. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem County, New Jersey Date of application for amendment: January 5, 2009, as supplemented by letters dated June 9, and September 2, 2009. Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies Technical Specification (TS) requirements for mode change limitations in accordance with Revision 9 of Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF–359, ‘‘Increase Flexibility in Mode Restraints.’’ E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM 29DEN1 68872 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 29, 2009 / Notices Date of issuance: December 8, 2009. Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days. Amendment No.: 180. Facility Operating License No. NPF– 57: The amendment revised the TSs and the License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 24, 2009 (74 FR 8286). The letters dated June 9, and September 2, 2009, provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand the application beyond the scope of the original Federal Register notice. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 8, 2009. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 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 application for amendments: January 30, 2009, as supplemented by letters dated March 16 and September 29, 2009. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specification 5.7.1.5, ‘‘Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),’’ to allow the use of the CASMO–4 methodology to perform nuclear design calculations. Date of issuance: December 15, 2009. Effective date: Upon issuance; to be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: Unit 2–222; Unit 3–215. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 10 and NPF–15: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 22, 2009 (74 FR 48320). The supplemental letters dated March 16 and September 29, 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 amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 15, 2009. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:02 Dec 28, 2009 Jkt 220001 Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri Date of application for amendment: December 29, 2008, as supplemented by letter dated June 18, 2009. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.4, ‘‘DC [Direct Current] Sources—Operating,’’ and TS 3.8.5, ‘‘DC Sources—Shutdown.’’ Specifically, the amendment revised the battery connection resistance verification limits in Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.4.2 and SR 3.8.4.5, by lowering the acceptance criteria for cell-to-cell (i.e., inter-cell) and terminal battery connection resistances from 150 micro-ohms to 69 micro-ohms. Date of issuance: December 9, 2009. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 194. Facility Operating License No. NPF– 30: The amendment revised the Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 21, 2009 (74 FR 18257). The supplemental letter dated June 18, 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 December 9, 2009. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of December, 2009. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Joseph G. Giitter, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E9–30675 Filed 12–28–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2009–0568] NUREG–1934, Nuclear Power Plant Fire Modeling Application Guide (NPP FIRE MAG), Draft Report for Comment AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 ACTION: Announcement of issuance for public comment, availability. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued for public comment a document entitled: ‘‘NUREG–1934 (EPRI 1019195), Nuclear Power Plant Fire Modeling Application Guide (NPP FIRE MAG), Draft Report for Comment.’’ DATES: Please submit comments by March 10, 2010. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include Docket ID NRC–2009– 0568 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site Regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed. Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC–2009–0568. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301–492–3668; e-mail Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. Mail comments to: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking and Directives Branch (RDB), Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05– B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001, or by fax to RDB at (301) 492– 3446. You can access publicly available documents related to this notice using the following methods: NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM 29DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68867-68872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30675]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0567]


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 December 3, 2009, to December 16, 2009. The 
last biweekly notice was published on December 15, 2009 (74 FR 66381).

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-

[[Page 68868]]

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, http://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 requestor/petitioner 
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 
requestor/petitioner 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 requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner 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 requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner 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 (72 FR 49139, 
August 28, 2007). 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 participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at (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 
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a 
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic 
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may 
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should 
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, 
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance 
in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web 
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser 
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web

[[Page 68869]]

site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant 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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 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 
E-Filing 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 by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at 
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    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. A presiding officer, having 
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants 
are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as 
social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their 
filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of 
such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited 
excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would 
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to 
include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from December 29, 2009. Non-timely filings will not be entertained 
absent a determination by the presiding officer that the petition or 
request should be granted or the contentions should be admitted, based 
on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-
(viii).
    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, http://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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: October 30, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
relocate selected Surveillance Requirement frequencies from the Oyster 
Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek) Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to a licensee-controlled program. This change is 
based on the NRC-approved Industry Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) change TSTF-425, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee 
Control--Risk Informed Technical Specification Task Force (RITSTF) 
Initiative 5b,'' Revision 3, (Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML090850642). Plant-specific 
deviations from TSTF-425 are proposed to accommodate differences 
between the Oyster Creek TSs and the model TSs originally used to 
develop TSTF-425.
    The NRC staff issued a Notice of Availability for TSTF-425 in the 
Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The notice included a 
model safety evaluation (SE) and a model no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC) determination. In its application dated October 
30, 2009, the licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC 
determination which is presented below.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of NSHC is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for 
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are 
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the 
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are 
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance 
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of 
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. 
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated 
are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the

[[Page 68870]]

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 previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed 
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or 
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria 
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in 
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by 
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing 
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS), 
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance 
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis 
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To 
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Exelon 
will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance 
contained in NRC approved NEI 04-01, Rev. 1[. The] methodology 
provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating 
the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies 
consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
    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. J. Bradley Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: June 25, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: Florida Power & Light proposes to 
revise the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 licensing bases to adopt the 
alternative source term (AST) as allowed in Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, Section 50.67.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. AST calculations have been performed for 
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 which demonstrate that the dose 
consequences remain below limits specified in RG 1.183 and 10 CFR 
50.67. For the Spent Fuel Cask Drop and the Waste Gas Decay Tank 
Rupture Events which are not addressed by RG [Regulatory Guide] 
1.183, the AST methodology has demonstrated that the dose 
consequences remain below the limits identified above. The AST 
calculations are based on the current plant design and operation as 
modified by the installation of a passive post-LOCA [loss-of-coolant 
accident] recirculation pH control system, re-location and redesign 
of the control room emergency ventilation intakes, the replacement 
of the aluminum normal containment cooler fins with copper fins, and 
for certain events, manual operator actions for initiation of 
control room emergency ventilation system. These proposed changes to 
the plant configuration are not accident precursors for any 
previously evaluated accidents and support mitigation of the dose 
consequences of previously evaluated accidents. The proposed 
modification to the plant configuration will be fully qualified to 
the appropriate design requirements to assure their required 
function is available for accident mitigation and to assure the 
function of other equipment required for accident mitigation are not 
adversely impacted. The use of the AST changes the regulatory 
assumptions regarding the analytical treatment of the design basis 
accidents and has no direct effect on the probability of any 
accident. The AST has been utilized in the analysis of the limiting 
design basis accidents listed above. The results of the analyses, 
which include the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications 
(TS), and the installation of the modifications, demonstrate that 
the dose consequences of these limiting events are all within 
regulatory limits.
    TS 3/4.6.3 Emergency Containment Filtering (ECF) System has been 
deleted since the dose consequence analyses are within regulatory 
limits. A new TS is being incorporated to ensure the operability of 
the Recirculation pH Control System. The remaining TS changes are 
consistent with, or more restrictive than, the current TS 
requirements or established precedent. None of the affected systems, 
components, or programs are related to accident initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed changes to Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 only affect 
those systems described above. The proposed Recirculation pH Control 
System is a passive system that will not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated. The proposed modification to the plant configuration will 
be fully qualified to the appropriate design requirements to assure 
their required function is available for accident mitigation and to 
assure the function of other equipment required for accident 
mitigation are not adversely impacted. Neither implementation of the 
AST methodology, establishing more restrictive TS requirements, 
deleting TS 3/4.6.3, nor installing the modifications described 
above have the capability to introduce any new failure mechanisms or 
cause any analyzed accident to progress in a different manner.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    The proposed implementation of the AST methodology is consistent 
with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183. For the Spent Fuel Cask Drop and 
the Waste Gas Decay Tank Rupture Events which are not addressed by 
RG 1.183, the AST methodology has demonstrated that the dose 
consequences remain below the limits identified above.
    With the exception of the deletion of TS 3/4.6.3, and the 
addition of the recirculation pH sump control system, the proposed 
TS changes are consistent with, or more restrictive than, the 
current TS requirements or established precedent. The proposed TS 
requirements and plant modifications will support the AST revisions 
to the limiting design basis accidents. As such, the current plant 
margin of safety is preserved. Conservative methodologies, per the 
guidance of RG 1.183, have been used in performing the accident 
analyses. The radiological consequences of these accidents are all 
within the regulatory acceptance criteria associated with the use of 
the AST methodology.
    The proposed changes continue to ensure that the doses at the 
exclusion area and low population zone boundaries and in the Control 
Room are within the corresponding regulatory limits of RG 1.183 and 
10 CFR 50.67. The margin of safety for the radiological limits is 
set at or below the 10 CFR 50.67 limits. An acceptable margin of 
safety is inherent in these limits.
    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 50.92(c) are 
satisfied.

[[Page 68871]]

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: September 23, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to: (1) Delete TS 4.0.5, 
which pertains to surveillance requirements (SRs) for inservice 
inspection (ISI) and inservice testing (IST) of American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Code) 
Class 1, 2 and 3 components; (2) add a new TS for the IST Program to 
Section 6.0, ``Administrative Controls,'' of the TSs; and (3) change 
TSs that currently reference TS 4.0.5 to reference the IST Program or 
ISI Program, as applicable. The new TS for the IST Program, TS 6.8.4.j, 
will indicate that the program will include testing frequencies 
applicable to the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear 
Power Plants (OM Code), replacing the current reference to Section XI 
of the ASME Code specified in TS 4.0.5. In addition, TS 6.8.4.j would 
revise the requirements, currently contained in TS 4.0.5, regarding the 
applicability of the surveillance interval extension provisions of SR 
4.0.2.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes revise TS 4.0.5, Surveillance Requirements 
for Inservice Inspections and Testing of ASME Code Components, for 
consistency with [ ] 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) requirements regarding 
inservice testing of pumps and valves. The proposed change 
incorporates revisions to the ASME OM Code and clarifies testing 
frequency requirements for testing pumps and valves. The proposed 
change also relocates the ISI and IST Programs consistent with 
NUREG-1431.
    The proposed changes do not impact any accident initiators or 
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient 
events. They do not involve the addition or removal of any 
equipment, or any design changes to the facility.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not represent 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 do not involve a modification to the 
physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be 
installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different 
requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident 
precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Therefore, this proposed change 
does not create the possibility of an accident of a different kind 
than previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No
    The proposed changes revises and relocates TS 4.0.5, 
Surveillance Requirements for Inservice Inspections and Testing of 
ASME Code Components, for consistency with (1) the requirements of 
10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) regarding the inservice testing of pumps and 
valves and (2) NUREG-1431. The proposed change updates references to 
the ASME OM Code, clarifies testing frequency requirements for 
testing pumps and valves, and relocates the IST Program to Section 
6.0 of TS, and the ISI Program to a licensee controlled document. 
The safety function of the affected pumps and valves will be 
maintained; the programs will continue to be implemented with the 
required regulations and codes.
    Therefore, this 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: Vincent Zabielski, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

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 System (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http://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.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of application for amendment: January 5, 2009, as supplemented 
by letters dated June 9, and September 2, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies Technical 
Specification (TS) requirements for mode change limitations in 
accordance with Revision 9 of Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved TS 
Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-359, ``Increase Flexibility in Mode 
Restraints.''

[[Page 68872]]

    Date of issuance: December 8, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 180.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the 
TSs and the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 24, 2009 (74 
FR 8286).
    The letters dated June 9, and September 2, 2009, provided 
clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination or expand the 
application beyond the scope of the original Federal Register notice. 
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a 
Safety Evaluation dated December 8, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 application for amendments: January 30, 2009, as 
supplemented by letters dated March 16 and September 29, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification 5.7.1.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to 
allow the use of the CASMO-4 methodology to perform nuclear design 
calculations.
    Date of issuance: December 15, 2009.
    Effective date: Upon issuance; to be implemented within 60 days of 
issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 2-222; Unit 3-215.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 22, 2009 (74 
FR 48320). The supplemental letters dated March 16 and September 29, 
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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 15, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri
    Date of application for amendment: December 29, 2008, as 
supplemented by letter dated June 18, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.8.4, ``DC [Direct Current] Sources--Operating,'' 
and TS 3.8.5, ``DC Sources--Shutdown.'' Specifically, the amendment 
revised the battery connection resistance verification limits in 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.4.2 and SR 3.8.4.5, by lowering the 
acceptance criteria for cell-to-cell (i.e., inter-cell) and terminal 
battery connection resistances from 150 micro-ohms to 69 micro-ohms.
    Date of issuance: December 9, 2009.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 194.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the 
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 21, 2009 (74 FR 
18257). The supplemental letter dated June 18, 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 December 9, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-30675 Filed 12-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P