Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 57352-57358 [E7-19553]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57352-57358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-19553]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


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 staff) 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 September 13, 2007 to September 26, 2007. 
The last biweekly notice was published on September 25, 2007 (72 FR 
54771).

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 10 CFR 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. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this 
notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and 
any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who 
wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written 
request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
    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, 
Directives and Editing Branch, 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 delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's 
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public 
File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave 
to intervene is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the

[[Page 57353]]

proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for 
leave to intervene. 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 persons 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 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing 
or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, 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 set forth 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, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, 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.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed 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; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HearingDocket@nrc.gov; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition 
for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the 
licensee.
    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
    For further details with respect to this action, 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 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 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@nrc.gov.

Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee 
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, SC

    Date of amendment request: January 31, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Technical Specifications to remove requirements that are no 
longer applicable due to the completion of the control room intake/
booster fan modifications.
    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) Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated:
    The proposed change to Technical Specification 3.7.9 removes out 
of date requirements associated with temporary extensions of 
Required Action Completion Times that are not applicable because of 
the completion of the Control Room Intake/

[[Page 57354]]

Booster Fan Modification. As such, the proposed change is 
administrative. No actual plant equipment, operating practices, or 
accident analyses are affected by this change. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated:
    The proposed change to Technical Specification 3.7.9 removes out 
of date requirements associated with a temporary extension of 
Required Actions Completion Times that are no longer applicable 
because of the completion of the Control Room Intake/Booster Fan 
Modification. As such, the proposed changes are administrative. No 
actual plant equipment, operating practices, or accident analyses 
are affected by this change. No new accident causal mechanisms are 
created as a result of this change. The proposed change does not 
impact any plant systems that are accident initiators; neither does 
it adversely impact any accident mitigating systems. Therefore, this 
change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety: The 
proposed change does not adversely affect any plant safety limits, 
set points, or design parameters. The change also does not adversely 
affect the fuel, fuel cladding, Reactor Coolant System, or 
containment integrity. The proposed change eliminates out of date 
requirements and is administrative in nature. Therefore the proposed 
change does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: August 30, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment will 
revise the Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) in Arkansas Nuclear 
One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), Technical Specification 3.1.3.4, ``CEA Drop 
Time,'' by revising the amount of time for an individual Control 
Element Assembly (CEA) to travel from a fully withdrawn position until 
it reaches the 90 percent insertion position. The current limit is <= 
3.5 seconds. The proposed limit is <= 3.7 seconds. The arithmetic 
average drop time or the associated delay times are not impacted by the 
proposed change. This change is necessary to support the implementation 
of Next Generation Fuel in the next operating cycle.
    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 to the CEA drop time requirements have been 
evaluated for impact on the ANO-2 accident analyses. The change 
involves only an acceptance criterion for equipment performance and 
not physical changes. The CEA drop time acceptance criteria are used 
to develop trip reactivity insertion rates which are in turn used as 
inputs to the accident analyses.
    Previous analyses demonstrated that the calculated trip 
reactivity for a realistic distributed CEA drop pattern is the same 
as the trip reactivity calculated for the nondistributed pattern. 
The current evaluations reverified this approach. The only 
difference is the maximum time limit for an individual CEA. Since 
the trip reactivity assumed in the accident analyses is not 
adversely impacted by consideration of a distributed CEA drop 
pattern with a larger distribution around the same average position, 
the proposed limits will not increase 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 any new or modified 
structures, systems, or components; rather, it affects only an 
acceptance criterion for confirming the required performance of the 
existing CEA hardware. Therefore, the proposed change would 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 margins of safety related to CEA insertion are defined by 
the analyzed events in the Safety Analysis Report which credit the 
insertion. As demonstrated above, the proposed limits on the CEA 
drop time have no adverse impact on the accident analyses. 
Therefore, the margins of safety reflected in the accident analysis 
conclusions are not reduced.

    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 
Council--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, 
Mississippi 39213.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.

Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, LA

    Date of amendment request: September 13, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change will add a 
License Condition 2.C to the Facility Operating License NPF-47 that 
allows River Bend Station, Unit 1, Technical Specifications (TS) 
surveillance intervals to be extended on a one-time basis for the 
fourteenth Fuel Cycle to account for the effects of a delayed refueling 
outage. The affected surveillances involve the 18-month hydrogen mixing 
system flow test and the 18-month Channel Calibration and Logic System 
Functional tests for one channel of a particular reactor water level 
instrument system. The reactor water level instrument channel provides 
an automatic signal to the following functions: Main Steam Line 
Isolation, Primary Containment and Drywell Isolation, Reactor Water 
Cleanup System Isolation, Secondary Containment and Fuel Building 
Isolation, and the Control Room Fresh Air System.
    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 requested action is a one-time extension to the performance 
interval of certain TS surveillance requirements. The performance of 
the surveillances, or the failure to perform the surveillances, is 
not a precursor to an accident. Performing the surveillances or 
failing to perform the surveillances does not affect the probability 
of an accident. Therefore, the proposed delay in performance of the 
surveillance requirements in this amendment request does not 
increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    A delay in performing the surveillances does not result in a 
system being unable to perform its required function. Additionally,

[[Page 57355]]

the defense in depth of the system design provides additional 
confidence that the safety function is maintained. In the case of 
this one-time extension request, the relatively short period of 
additional time that the systems and components will be in service 
before the next performance of the surveillance will not affect the 
ability of those systems to operate as designed. Therefore, the 
system required to mitigate accidents will remain capable of 
performing their required function. No new failure modes have been 
introduced because of this action and the consequences remain 
consistent with previously evaluated accidents. Therefore, the 
proposed delay in performance of the surveillance requirement in 
this amendment request does not involve a significant increase in 
the consequences of an accident.
    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 amendment does not involve a physical alteration of 
any system, structure, or component (SSC) or a change in the way any 
SSC is operated. The surveillance intervals of the level 
instrumentation are currently evaluated for 30 months which bounds 
the requested interval extension. The proposed amendment does not 
involve operation of any SSCs in a manner or configuration different 
from those previously recognized or evaluated. No new failure 
mechanisms will be introduced by the one-time surveillance 
requirement deferrals being requested.
    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 amendment is a one-time extension of the 
performance interval of certain TS surveillance requirements. 
Extending the surveillance requirements does not involve a 
modification of any TS Limiting Conditions for Operation. Extending 
the surveillance requirements do not involve a change to any limit 
on accident consequences specified in the license or regulations. 
Extending the surveillance requirements does not involve a change to 
how accidents are mitigated or a significant increase in the 
consequences of an accident. Extending the surveillance requirements 
does not involve a change in a methodology used to evaluate 
consequences of an accident. Extending these surveillance 
requirements does not involve a change in any operating procedure or 
process. The surveillance intervals of the level instrumentation are 
currently evaluated for 30 months which bounds the requested 
interval extension.
    The components involved in this request have exhibited reliable 
operation based on the results of the most recent performances of 
their 18-month surveillance requirements and the associated 
functional surveillances.
    Based on the limited additional period of time that the systems 
and components will be in service before the surveillance is next 
performed, as well as the operating experience that these 
surveillances are typically successful when performed, it is 
reasonable to conclude that the margin of safety associated with the 
surveillance requirement will not be affected by the requested 
extension.

    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: Terence A. Burke, Associate General 
Council--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, 
Mississippi 39213.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie 
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, MN

    Date of amendment request: July 19, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The changes in the proposed 
amendments are consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.52, ``Design, 
Inspection, and Testing Criteria for Air Filtration and Adsorption 
Units of Post-Accident Engineered-Safety-Feature Atmosphere Cleanup 
Systems in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 3.'' The 
licensee proposed the following changes to technical specifications 
(TS) for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) Units 1 
and 2:
    1. TS 3.6.9, ``Shield Building Ventilation System'': Revise 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.9.1 to require testing for greater 
than or equal to 15 minutes every 31 days.
    2. TS 3.7.12, ``Auxiliary Building Special Ventilation System'': 
Revise SR 3.7.12.1 to require testing for greater than or equal to 15 
minutes every 31 days.
    3. TS 3.7.13, ``Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System'': 
Revise SR 3.173.1 to require testing for greater than or equal to 15 
minutes every 31 days.
    4. TS 5.5.9, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program'': Revise the 
first paragraph of this TS to require performance of the required 
program testing every 24 months.
    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.
    This license amendment request proposes changes to Surveillance 
Requirements for the Shield Building Ventilation System, Auxiliary 
Building Special Ventilation System, and Spent Fuel Pool Special 
Ventilation System which revise the required system run-time with 
their filter heaters on. This license amendment request also 
proposes to revise the Frequency for performance of filter tests for 
these systems and the Control Room Special Ventilation System.
    These systems are not accident initiators and therefore, these 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of 
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are 
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and 
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design 
function. Thus these changes do not involve a significant increase 
in the consequences of an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
    This license amendment request proposes changes to Surveillance 
Requirements for the Shield Building Ventilation System, Auxiliary 
Building Special Ventilation System, and Spent Fuel Pool Special 
Ventilation System which revise the required system run-time with 
their filter heaters on. This license amendment request also 
proposes to revise the Frequency for performance of filter tests for 
these systems and the Control Room Special Ventilation System.
    The changes proposed for these safeguards ventilation systems do 
not change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing 
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that 
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system 
components are functional. These changes do not create new failure 
modes or mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
    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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This license amendment request proposes changes to Surveillance 
Requirements for the Shield Building Ventilation System, Auxiliary 
Building Special Ventilation System, and Spent Fuel Pool Special

[[Page 57356]]

Ventilation System which revise the required system run-time with 
their filter heaters on. This license amendment request also 
proposes to revise the Frequency for performance of filter tests for 
these systems and the Control Room Special Ventilation System.
    The design basis for the safeguards ventilation systems' heaters 
is to heat the incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. The 
heater testing changes proposed in this license amendment request 
will continue to demonstrate that the heaters are capable of heating 
the air, will perform their design function and are consistent with 
regulatory guidance, and thus these changes do not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Periodic testing of the 
safeguards ventilation systems' filters is required to demonstrate 
that the filters perform their design function. The Frequency for 
performance of these filter tests proposed in this license amendment 
request will continue to demonstrate that the filters perform their 
intended function, is consistent with regulatory guidance and thus 
does 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 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: Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, 
Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, 
Hudson, WI 54016.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, NE

    Date of amendment request: September 11, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: In August 2006, OPPD submitted a 
license amendment request to replace trisodium phosphate with sodium 
tetraborate (NaTB) for one cycle. By letter dated November 13, 2006, 
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff approved this request. The 
proposed amendment will revise Technical Specifications (TS) 2.3(4), 
``Containment Sump Buffering Agent Specification and Volume 
Requirement,'' and TS 3.6, ``Surveillance Requirements,'' to allow the 
permanent use of NaTB as the containment sump buffering agent.
    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.
    There are no changes to the design or operation of the plant 
affecting structures, systems, and components (SSCs) or accident 
functions due to long-term use of sodium tetraborate (NaTB). 
Similarly, there are no changes to the design or operation of the 
plant affecting SSCs or accident functions because of revising the 
volume of buffering agent required during Operating Modes 1 and 2. 
The changes are necessary due to the lower density of NaTB that will 
be obtained from a new vendor and provide for additional pH 
[potential of hydrogen] control margin in the post loss-of-coolant 
accident (LOCA) sump with minimal impact on electrical equipment 
qualification (EEQ) margin.
    All SSCs function as designed and the performance requirements 
have been evaluated and found to be acceptable. NaTB will maintain 
pH >= 7.0 in the recirculation water following a LOCA. This function 
is maintained with the proposed change.
    Analysis demonstrates that using NaTB as a buffering agent 
ensures the post-LOCA containment sump mixture will have a pH >= 
7.0. The buffering agent is not an accident initiator; therefore, 
the use of NaTB on a permanent basis will 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.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single 
failures are introduced because of the proposed changes. All SSCs 
previously required for mitigation of an event remain capable of 
fulfilling their intended design function. The proposed changes have 
no adverse effects on any safety-related system or component and do 
not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety related 
system. The long-term use of NaTB as a buffering agent has been 
evaluated and no new accident scenarios or single failures are 
introduced.
    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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Removing the restrictions limiting the use of NaTB to Fuel Cycle 
24 to allow long-term operation with NaTB does not affect its 
capability to maintain the pH of the containment sump >= 7.0 post-
LOCA. Previous evaluations have shown that NaTB is capable of 
maintaining the pH of the containment sump >= 7.0 post-LOCA. A 
volume of NaTB that is dependent on hot zero power critical boron 
concentration has been evaluated previously with respect to 
neutralization of all borated water and acid sources. These 
evaluations concluded that there would be no impact on pH control, 
and hence no reduction in the margin of safety related to post-LOCA 
conditions.
    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: James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.

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

[[Page 57357]]

North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from 
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, PA

    Date of application for amendment: December 12, 2006, as 
supplemented by letters dated May 31 and July 11, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification Sections 3.8 and 4.1 to delete references to radiation 
monitors RM-G6, RM-G7 and RM-G9. The administrative requirements for 
these monitors have been removed from the technical specifications and 
placed into licensee controlled documents.
    Date of issuance: September 26, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 260.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. Amendment revised the 
license and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 3, 2007 (72 FR 
36521). The supplemental letters dated May 31 and July 11, 2007, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed and did not 
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 26, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336 and 50-423, 
Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 New London County, CT

    Date of amendment request: September 1, 2006.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Millstone 
Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Technical Specifications to replace 
the terms ``trash racks and screens'' with the term ``strainers.''
    Date of issuance: September 18, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 300 and 240.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-65 and NPF-49: Amendment 
revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 24, 2006 (71 FR 
62308).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 18, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: September 15, 2006.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments modify the 
Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirement 3.1.4.2, ``Control 
Rod Scram Times'' frequency from 120 days to 200 days.
    Date of issuance: September 14, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendments Nos.: 262 and 266.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 19, 2006 (71 
FR 75994).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: March 6, 2007.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the TS 
Surveillance Requirement 3.6.1.3.14, ``Primary Containment Isolation 
Valves.'' Specifically, the proposed change revises the allowed leakage 
from 11.5 standard cubic feet per hour (scfh) per valve to 46 scfh 
total leakage through all four valves.
    Date of issuance: September 14, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendments Nos.: 263 and 267.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 24, 2007 (72 FR 
40342).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy 
Center, Linn County, IA

    Date of application for amendment: February 27, 2004, as 
supplemented by letters dated August 9, 2004, January 7, 2005, May 11, 
and August 3, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies license 
condition 2.C.(2)(b) to eliminate the requirement to perform a main 
generator load reject test. The request within the same application to 
modify license condition 2.C.(2)(b) to remove the requirement to 
perform a full main steam isolation valve closure test, associated with 
extended power uprate, resulted in Amendment No. 257, issued on March 
17, 2005, under separate correspondence.
    Date of issuance: September 20, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 266.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment revised the 
Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 13, 2004 (69 FR 
19572).
    The supplemental letters 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 amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 20, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-316, Donald C. Cook 
Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Berrien County, MI

    Date of application for amendment: November 3, 2006, as 
supplemented on June 27, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved elimination 
of the resistance temperature detector (RTD) bypass piping and 
installing fast response thermowell-mounted RTDs in

[[Page 57358]]

the reactor coolant system loop piping. The amendment also revised 
Surveillance Requirement 3.3.1.15 of the Technical Specifications, 
deleting the requirement to perform surveillance on the reactor coolant 
system RTD bypass loop flow rate.
    Date of issuance: September 19, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to entry into Mode 2 from the fall 2007 refueling outage.
    Amendment No.: 280.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-74: Amendment revises the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 3, 2007 (72 FR 
153).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 19, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-316, Donald C. Cook 
Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Berrien County, MI

    Date of application for amendment: September 15, 2006, as 
supplemented on April 20, July 6 and July 25, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approves a plant 
design change that modifies the turbine control system, and changes the 
technical specifications, increasing the associated allowable low 
control fluid oil pressure from greater than or equal to (>=) 57 pounds 
per square inch gauge (psig) to >=750 psig.
    Date of issuance: September 21, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to entry into Mode 1 after the unit's Cycle 17 (fall 2007) 
refueling outage.
    Amendment No.: 281.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-74: Amendment revises the 
Technical Specifications. The April 20, July 6, and July 25, 2007, 
supplements provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register on November 21, 2006 (71 FR 67396).
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2006 (71 
FR 67396).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 21, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power 
Plant, Unit 3, Humboldt County, CA

    Date of application for amendment: April 4, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the license 
to allow the results of near-term surveys, performed on a portion of 
the plant site, to be included in the eventual Final Status Survey for 
license termination.
    Date of issuance: September 11, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
when a cross contamination prevention and monitoring plan is 
implemented.
    Amendment No.: 40.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-7: This amendment revises the 
license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (72 FR 
41787).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 11, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: February 26, 2007, as 
supplemented on July 26, 2007.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the 
allowable value for Functional Unit 17.A in Technical Specification 
Table 2.2-1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Trip Setpoints,'' 
from greater than or equal to 43 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 
39.5 psig.
    Date of issuance: September 20, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 45 days.
    Amendment Nos: 316 and 306.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79: Amendments 
revised the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 24, 2007 (72 FR 
20385). The July 26, 2007, supplemental letter provided clarifying 
information that was within the scope of the initial notice 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 September 20, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of September 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor, Licensing Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E7-19553 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P