[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66381-66387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-29545]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0553]


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

[[Page 66382]]

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 November 18, 2009 to December 2, 2009. The 
last biweekly notice was published on December 1, 2009 (74 FR 62831).

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking 
and Directives Branch (RDB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of Administrative 
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be faxed to the RDB at 301-492-3446. Documents may be examined, and/or 
copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at 
One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license. 
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be 
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for 
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) 
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 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

[[Page 66383]]

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 
[email protected], 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 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 
[email protected], 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 15, 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

[[Page 66384]]

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].
    Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power 
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
    Date of amendment request: August 24, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to convert 
the Kewaunee Power Station (KPS) current Technical Specifications (CTS) 
to the Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) format as outlined in 
NUREG-1431, Rev. 3.0, ``Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse 
Plants.'' Some of the proposed changes involve reformatting, 
renumbering, and rewording of the CTS with no change in intent. These 
changes, since they do not involve technical changes to the CTS, are 
administrative. This type of change is connected with the movement of 
requirements, or with the modification of wording that does not affect 
the technical content of the CTS. These changes also include non-
technical modifications of requirements to conform to TSTF-GG-05-01, 
``Writer's Guide for Plant-Specific Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications,'' or provide consistency with the Improved Standard 
Technical Specifications in NUREG-1431. Administrative changes are not 
intended to add, delete, or relocate any technical requirements of the 
CTS.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change involves reformatting, renumbering, and 
rewording the CTS. The reformatting, renumbering, and rewording 
process involves no technical changes to the CTS. As such, this 
change is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of 
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient 
events. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
[nor does it change] methods governing normal plant operation. The 
proposed change will not impose any new or eliminate any old 
requirements. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because 
it has no effect on any safety analyses assumptions. This change is 
administrative in nature. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., 
120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
    Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam 
Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
    Date of amendment request: October 22, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change will modify 
the Technical Specifications (TSs), to clarify Table 2.2-1, Notes ``1'' 
and ``5''; and Table 3.3-1, Notes ``a'' and ``c'', Table 3.3-1 Action 
2, and Table 3.3-1 Action 3 which have resulted in Plant Protection 
System redundancy issues with respect to verbatim compliance.
    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 modify the table notations for the 
10-4% [percent] Bistable in Technical Specifications (TS) 
TS Table 2.2-1 Notes ``1'' and ``5'', TS Table 3.3-1 Notes ``a'' and 
``c'', TS Table 3.3-1 Action 2, and TS Table 3.3-1 Action 3. The 
proposed changes to these trip bypass removal functions do not 
adversely impact any system, structure, or component design or 
operation in a manner that would result in a change in the frequency 
or occurrence of accident initiation. The reactor trip bypass 
removal functions are not accident initiators. System connections 
and the trip setpoints themselves are not affected by trip bypass 
removal setpoint variations.
    As previously approved in TS Amendment 145 [issued September 24, 
1998], the hysteresis for the 10-4% Bistable is small, 
there is a negligible impact on the CEA [control element assembly] 
withdrawal analyses. Revised analyses, accounting for slightly 
different bypass removal power levels caused by the bistable 
hysteresis, would result in negligible changes to the calculated 
peak power and heat flux for the pertinent CEA withdrawal events. 
Therefore, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated 
will not significantly change.
    With respect to the clarification proposed for the THERMAL POWER 
input to the bypass capability of the affected reactor trips for the 
10-4% Bistable, the proposed change does not alter the 
manner of operation of the operating bypasses and automatic bypass 
removals. This change corrects a discrepancy between the formal 
definition of this terminology and its use in the context of the 
applicable Technical Specifications.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of any 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 trip bypass removal functions in question protect against 
possible reactivity events. The power, criticality levels, and 
possible bank withdrawals associated with these trip functions have 
already been evaluated. Therefore, all pertinent reactivity events 
have previously been considered. Slight differences in the power 
level at which the automatic trip bypass removal occurs can not 
cause a different kind of accident.
    The proposed changes to TS Table 2.2-1 Notes ``1'' and ``5'', TS 
Table 3.3-1 *Notes ``a'' and ``c'', TS Table 3.3-1 Action 2, and TS 
Table 3.3-1 Action 3 do not alter any plant system, structure, or 
component. Furthermore, these changes do not reduce the capability 
of any safety-related equipment to mitigate AOOs [anticipated 
operational occurrences].
    In addition, no new or different accidents result from proposed 
clarifications to the operating bypasses and automatic bypass 
removals of the affected reactor trips. The results of previously 
performed accident analyses remain valid. Therefore, this change 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The safety function associated with the CPC [core protection 
calculators] and HLP [high logarithmic power] trip functions are 
maintained. Since the hysteresis for the 10-4% Bistable 
is small, there is a negligible impact on the CEA withdrawal 
analyses. Calculated peak power and heat flux are not

[[Page 66385]]

significantly changed as a result of the bistable hysteresis. All 
acceptance criteria are still met for these events. There is no 
change to any margin of safety as a result of this change.
    Clarification of the THERMAL POWER input to the operating 
bypasses and automatic bypass removals of the 10-4% 
Bistable does not alter the operation of the operating bypasses and 
automatic bypass removals of the affected reactor trips. This change 
corrects a discrepancy between the formal definition of this 
terminology and its use in the context of the applicable Technical 
Specifications.
    Therefore, the proposed change will 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: Terence A. Burke, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, 
Jackson, Mississippi 39213.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
    FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-
334 and 50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 
(BVPS-1 and 2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania
    Date of amendment request: June 11, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would: 
(1) Modify Technical Specifications (TSs) to eliminate Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 3.3.2.9, which verifies that the Engineered Safety 
Feature Actuation System Response Times are within the limits for 
the recirculation spray pumps, (2) revise Section 1.4 of the TSs to 
add clarification to Notes associated with SRs in accordance with 
Technical Specification Task Force Traveler, TSTF 475-A, Revision 1, 
``Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM [Source Range Monitor] 
Insert Control Rod Action,'' (3) revise the BVPS-1 operating license 
to remove a License Condition for recommended inspections of steam 
generator repairs, and (4) revise the BVPS-2 operating license to 
remove an exemption to 10 CFR 70.24.
    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 to the Operating License pages and Example 
1.4-1 are editorial changes that do not have any effect on equipment 
or plant operation. Therefore, these proposed changes will not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    The elimination of the requirement to verify a response time for 
the recirculation spray pumps will not affect the operation of the 
pumps and will not impact the applicable safety analyses because the 
potential variation in the measurable response time has an 
insignificant effect on the results of the applicable safety 
analyses. The recirculation spray system is an accident mitigation 
system, so no new accident initiators are created by the elimination 
of the subject surveillance requirement. Thus eliminating the 
surveillance requirement will not result in a significant increase 
in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The 
elimination of the subject surveillance requirement will not impact 
the accident mitigation function of the recirculation spray system 
because the pump response time is not a critical safety analyses 
assumption due to the fact that the potential variation in the 
measurable response time has an insignificant effect on the 
analysis. Since the post-accident performance of the recirculation 
spray system is not changed by eliminating the requirement to verify 
a response time for the pumps, the proposed change will not involve 
a significant increase in consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated. Therefore, the elimination of the surveillance 
requirement will not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the Operating License pages and Example 
1.4-1 are editorial changes that do not have any effect on equipment 
or plant operation. Therefore, these proposed changes will not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    The elimination of the surveillance requirement to verify a 
response time for the recirculation spray pumps will not affect the 
operation of the pumps. The pumps will continue to perform in the 
same manner after the elimination of the surveillance requirement as 
they do with the surveillance requirement. Therefore, the 
elimination of the surveillance requirement will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the Operating License pages and Example 
1.4-1 are editorial changes that do not have any effect on equipment 
or plant operation. Therefore, these proposed changes will not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The elimination of the surveillance requirement to verify a 
response time for the recirculation spray pumps is consistent with 
the applicable safety analysis since a response time for the pumps 
is not an analysis assumption. As a result the existing margin of 
safety is not impacted. Therefore, the elimination of the 
surveillance requirement will not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the 
licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the 
three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC 
staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, 
Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
    Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear 
Plant, Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
    Date of amendment request: October 30, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Watt Bar Nuclear Plan, Unit 1 license by adding an exception to 
Operating License Condition 2.F regarding the provisions of the Fire 
Protection Program.
    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:

    A. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not affect the design of the automatic 
total-flooding CO2 [carbon dioxide] suppression system, 
the operational characteristics or function of the CO2 
suppression system, the interfaces between the CO2 
suppression system and other plant systems, or the reliability of 
the CO2 suppression system. The CO2 
suppression system is not considered an initiator of any Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) accident or transient 
previously evaluated. The CO2 suppression system is 
designed to extinguish a fire or control and minimize the effects of 
a fire until the fire brigade can respond and extinguish it.
    The consequences of previously evaluated accidents and 
transients will not be significantly affected by the revised 
requirements for CO2 concentration in the Auxiliary 
Instrument Room because the CO2 suppression system is not 
credited in the accident analyses. Although the function of the 
system is to extinguish a fire or control

[[Page 66386]]

and minimize the effects of a fire until the fire brigade can 
respond and extinguish it, this function does not mitigate accidents 
or transients. Thus, the consequences of accidents or transients 
previously evaluated are not affected by the proposed change in the 
required CO2 concentration for the Auxiliary Instrument 
Room.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    B. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a change in the design, 
configuration, or method of operation of the plant. The proposed 
change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is 
initiated, nor will the functional demands on credited equipment be 
changed. The capability for fire suppression and extinguishment will 
not be changed. The proposed change does not affect the interaction 
of the CO2 suppression system with any system whose 
failure or malfunction can initiate an accident. As such, no new 
failure modes are being introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    C. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the plant design, including 
instrument setpoints, nor does it alter the assumptions contained in 
the safety analyses. The CO2 suppression system is 
designed for fire suppression and extinguishment and is not assumed 
or credited for accident mitigation. Although the change does reduce 
a parameter (CO2 concentration) specified in the license, 
the proposed change does not impact the redundancy or availability 
of equipment required for accident mitigation, or the ability of the 
plant to cope with design basis accident events.
    Therefore, the 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan.

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 [email protected].
    Florida Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-251, Turkey Point 
Plant, Unit 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Date of application for amendment: September 1, 2009, supplemented 
by letters dated October 28, 29, and 31, November 5, 6, 12, and 13, 
2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The request would change the 
implementation date of approved license amendment 229 for Unit 4, dated 
July 17, 2007, from ``prior to the end of Turkey Point 4 cycle 24'' to 
``no later than February 28, 2011, for Unit 4 only.''
    Date of issuance: November 13, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
immediately.
    Amendment No.: 237.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-41: Amendment revised 
the license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 15, 2009 (74 
FR 47278). The supplements dated October 28, 29, and 31, November 5, 6, 
12, and 13, 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 November 13, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama
    Date of application for amendments: April 24, 2009 (TS-464).
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes revised the 
Technical Specifications (TS) Bases sections 3.1.6, ``Rod Pattern 
Control,'' and 3.3.2.1, ``Control Rod Block Instrumentation'' to allow 
the Browns Ferry units to reference in the improved control rod banked 
position withdrawal sequence (BPWS) when performing a reactor shutdown. 
In addition, the proposed changes added a footnote to TS Table 3.3.2.1-
1, ``Control Rod Block Instrumentation''. The proposed changes are 
consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Industry 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-476, Revision 1, ``Improved BPWS 
Control Rod Insertion Process (NEDO-33091).''
    Date of issuance: November 19, 2009.
    Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 276, 303, and 262.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: 
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 28, 2009 (74 FR 
37249).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 19, 2009.

[[Page 66387]]

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd 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. E9-29545 Filed 12-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P