[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48318-48323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22605]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0407]


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 27, 2009 to September 9, 2009. The 
last biweekly notice was published on September 8, 2009 (74 FR 46239).

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 O-1 F21, 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

[[Page 48319]]

available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Public File Area O-1 F21, 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 petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held 
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC 
promulgated in August 2007 (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 petitioner/requestor 
should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM 
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the 
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and is 
available at http://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 http://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 http://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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC electronic filing Help Desk, 
which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday 
through Friday, excluding government holidays. The toll-free help line 
number is 1-866-672-7640. A person filing electronically may also seek 
assistance by sending an e-mail to the NRC electronic filing Help Desk 
at [email protected].

[[Page 48320]]

    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 
http://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 O-1 F21, 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 [email protected].

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

    Date of amendment requests: January 30, 2009, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 16, 2009.
    Description of amendment requests: Southern California Edison (SCE) 
is requesting an amendment to Technical Specification 5.7.1.5, ``Core 
Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to allow the use of the CASMO-4 
computer program methodology to perform nuclear design calculations.
    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 changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    SCE is adding the CASMO-4 computer program to its physics 
analysis methodology and will use the program for nuclear design 
analysis. This will allow the use of the CASMO-4 methodology to 
perform all steady-state pressurized water reactor (PWR) nuclear 
design analyses. The probability of occurrence of an accident 
previously evaluated will not be increased by the proposed change in 
the particular computer programs used for physics calculations for 
nuclear design analysis. The results of nuclear design analyses are 
used as inputs to the analysis of accidents that are evaluated in 
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). These inputs do 
not alter physical characteristics or modes of operation of any 
system, structure, or component involved in the initiation of an 
accident. Thus, there is no significant increase in the probability 
of an accident previously evaluated as a result of this change.
    The consequences of an accident evaluated in the UFSAR are 
affected by the values of the physics inputs to the safety analysis. 
An extensive benchmark of CASMO-4 was performed with both San Onofre 
measured and predicted data, and with critical experiments. The 
accuracy of the CASMO-4 model is similar to the accuracy of the 
CASMO-3 model. Furthermore, there is the potential for the value of 
the nuclear design parameters to change solely as a result of the 
new core reload full core loading pattern. Regardless of the source 
of a change, an assessment is made of changes to the nuclear design 
parameters with respect to their effects on the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR. Thus, the nuclear 
design parameters are intermediate results and by themselves will 
not result in an increase in the consequences of an accident 
evaluated in the UFSAR.
    Therefore, the use of the CASMO-4 methodology, which will 
perform the same functions as the existing CASMO-3 methodology with 
similar accuracy, does not significantly increase the 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 change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The possibility for a new or different kind of accident 
evaluated previously in the UFSAR will not be created by the change 
to the particular methodologies used for physics calculations for 
nuclear design analyses. The change involves adding CASMO-4 to the 
SCE physics analysis methodology. CASMO-4 is an update to the CASMO-
3 methodology currently approved for use at San Onofre. The results 
of nuclear design analyses are used as inputs to the analysis of 
accidents that are evaluated in the UFSAR. These inputs do not alter 
the physical characteristics or modes of operation of any system, 
structure or component involved in the initiation of an accident. 
Therefore, the addition of CASMO-4, which will perform the same 
functions as CASMO-3 with similar accuracy, does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety. The margin of safety as defined in the basis for 
any technical specification will not be reduced by the proposed 
change to the computer programs used for physics calculations for 
nuclear design analyses.
    The change involves the addition of CASMO-4 to the SCE physics 
analysis methodology for nuclear design analysis. Extensive 
benchmarking of CASMO-4 has demonstrated that the values of those 
parameters used in the safety analysis are not significantly changed 
relative to the values obtained using the NRC approved CASMO-3 
methodology. For any changes in the calculated values that do occur, 
the application of appropriate biases and uncertainties ensures that 
the current margin of safety is maintained. Specifically, use of 
these code specific biases and uncertainties in safety analyses 
continues to provide the

[[Page 48321]]

same statistical assurance that the values of the nuclear parameters 
used in the safety analysis are conservative with respect to the 
actual values on at least a 95/95 probability/confidence basis.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern 
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, 
California 91770
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 
3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: August 7, 2008, as supplemented 
on May 7, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The submittal contains an 
amendment with six proposed changes that modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 
Operating Licenses DPR-44 and DPR-56, respectively. Four of the six 
changes incorporate Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) travelers 
that have been previously approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC). The remaining proposed changes modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to incorporate administrative changes 
and clarifications.
    A TS change is issued to incorporate TSTF-485-A, ``Correct Example 
1.4-1,'' Revision 0, to modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS Section 1.4, 
``Frequency.'' Specifically, Example 1.4-1 is revised to be consistent 
with the requirements of Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.4 which was 
revised by TSTF-359, ``Increase Flexibility in Mode Restraints,'' 
Revision 9. The current version of Example 1.4-1 is not consistent with 
the current requirements of SR 3.0.4. Example 1.4-1 is modified to 
reflect that it is possible to enter the MODE or other specified 
condition in the applicability of a limited condition for operation 
(LCO) with a surveillance not performed within the frequency 
requirements of SR 3.0.2 without resulting in a violation of SR 3.0.4.
    A TS change is issued to modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS to 
incorporate two administrative changes. The first change modifies TS 
Table 3.3.8.1-1, ``Loss of Power Instrumentation.'' TS Table 3.3.8.1-1 
lists the TS functions associated with the Loss of Power 
Instrumentation and include note (a) at the bottom of Table 3.3.8.1-1. 
The original intent of this footnote was to temporarily retain a record 
of the previous Loss of Power Instrumentation values to allow for 
appropriate transition during the period of time that modifications 
were being installed on Units 2 and 3. This footnote was to expire no 
later than March 1, 2000 (as stated in the footnote). The note has 
expired and is no longer necessary. Therefore, note (a) at the bottom 
of Table 3.3.8.1-1 is eliminated as an administrative change to the TS.
    The second change modifies TS Table 3.3.3.1-1, ``Post Accident 
Monitoring Instrumentation,'' to correct a typographical error. A 
previous license amendment incorporated TSTF-295, Revision 0, ``Post 
Accident Monitoring Clarifications,'' which included changing the title 
for Function 8 in TS Table 3.3.3.1-1 from, ``PCIV Position,'' to 
``Penetration Flow Path PCIV Position.'' However, Function 8 was 
inadvertently revised on the PBAPS, Unit 2 page to state ``Penetration 
Flaw Path PCIV Position.'' The amendment corrects this typographical 
error for Function 8 in Table 3.3.3.1-1 of the Unit 2 PBAPS TS.
    A TS change is issued to modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS to 
incorporate an administrative change to Table 3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor 
Protection System Instrumentation.'' Specifically, the proposed change 
would modify TS Table 3.3.1.1-1 to delete the ``NA'' from the Allowable 
Value column for Function 2.f, ``OPRM [oscillation power range monitor] 
Upscale.'' The reference to footnote ``(d)'' which states: ``See COLR 
[core operating limits report] for OPRM period based detection 
algorithm (PBDA) setpoint limits,'' will remain in the Allowable Value 
column for Function 2.f in TS Table 3.3.1.1-1.
    Footnote ``(d)'' in TS Table 3.3.1.1-1 references the PBAPS COLR 
which contains the trip setpoint for the setpoint limits associated 
with Function 2.f. Therefore, the ``NA'' designation associated with 
note ``d'' is eliminated to preclude possible confusion.
    The licensee's application also proposed a TS change to incorporate 
TSTF-363-A, ``Revise Topical Report References in ITS [improved 
technical specifications] 5.6.5, COLR,'' Revision 0, to modify the 
PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' 
to remove the requirement to maintain COLR Topical Report references by 
number, title, date, and NRC staff-approved document, if included. This 
proposed TS change to incorporate TSTF-363-A, Revision 0, remains under 
review by the NRC staff and is not being issued under this Notice.

[[Page 48322]]

    The licensee's application also proposed a TS change to incorporate 
TSTF-400-A, ``Clarification of Surveillance Requirement on Bypass of 
Noncritical DG [diesel generator] Automatic Trips,'' Revision 1, to 
modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS SR 3.8.1.13 to clarify the intent of 
the SR. This proposed TS change to incorporate TSTF-400-A, Revision 1, 
remains under review by the NRC staff and is not being issued under 
this Notice.
    The licensee's application also proposed a TS change to incorporate 
TSTF-439-A, ``Elimination of Second Completion Times Limiting Time From 
Discovery of Failure To Meet an LCO,'' Revision 2, to modify the PBAPS 
Units 2 and 3 TS Section 1.3, ``Completion Times,'' regarding second 
completion times for TS Action statements. This proposed TS change to 
incorporate TSTF-439-A, Revision 2, remains under review by the NRC 
staff and is not being issued under this Notice.
    Date of issuance: August 31, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 273 and 277.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: 
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 5, 2009, (74 FR 
20744). The supplement dated May 7, 2009, clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: September 11, 2008, as 
supplemented by letter dated August 11, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendment removes time, cycle, 
or modification-related items from the operating license and Technical 
Specifications (TS). Additionally, the amendment corrects a 
typographical error introduced into the TS from a previous amendment.
    Date of issuance: August 27, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 193/180.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 30, 2008 (73 
FR 79931). The supplemental letter contained clarifying information, 
did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration 
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal 
Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 27, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry 
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio

    Date of application for amendment: March 11, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the 
technical specification (TS) surveillance requirement frequency in TS 
3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' and revises Example 1.4-3 in 
Section 1.4, ``Frequency,'' to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 
surveillance test interval extension.
    Date of issuance: September 1, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 153.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 5, 2009 (74 FR 
20748).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 1, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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 application for amendments: April 13, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the Turkey 
Point Technical Specification (TS) to eliminate working hour 
restrictions from TS 6.8.5 to support compliance with Code of Federal 
Regulations Title 10 Part 26.
    Date of issuance: August 31, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by October 1, 2009.
    Amendment Nos: 240 and 235.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 30, 2009.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
Alabama

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

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

    Date of application for amendments: May 19, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments delete those 
portions of technical specifications (TSs) superseded by Title 10 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, Subpart I. This 
change is consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-
approved Revision 0 to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler, TSTF-511, ``Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 
to Support Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.''
    Date of issuance: September 4, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by October 1, 2009.
    Amendment Nos.: Farley Unit 1--182; Unit 2--175; Hatch Unit 1--262; 
Unit 2--206; Vogtle Unit 1--156; Unit 2--137.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8; DPR-57 and NPF-5; 
NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments revised the licenses and the technical 
specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 30, 2009 (74 FR 
31325).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 4, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 48323]]

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 
(WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of application for amendment: June 5, 2009, as supplemented 
July 10, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised WBN Unit 1 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.3, ``Containment Isolation Valves.'' 
The amendment revised Required Action A.2, Required Action C.2, 
Required Action E.2, Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.3.2, and SR 
3.6.3.3 to provide alternatives for valve position verification.
    Date of issuance: September 3, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 79.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revises the TS 
3.6.3.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 30, 2009 (74 FR 
31327). The supplement dated July 10, 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 September 3, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 
(WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of application for amendment: June 5, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised WBN Unit 1 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.2, ``[Engineered Safety Feature 
Actuation System] ESFAS Instrumentation.'' The amendment revised the 
logic connector from ``OR'' to ``AND'' between Condition I, Required 
Actions I.2.1 and I.2.2 of TS 3.3.2.
    Date of issuance: September 8, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 80.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revises the TS 
3.3.2.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 30, 2009 (74 FR 
31326).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of September 2009.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-22605 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P