Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 10293-10302 [E8-3481]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10293-10302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-3481]


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

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 to 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 January 31 to February 13, 2008. The last 
biweekly notice was published on February 12, 2008 (73 FR 8068).

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.
    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-

[[Page 10294]]

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, 
person(s) 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 
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system 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 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 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 hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be 
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC 
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process 
requires participants to submit and serve 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 a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor 
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV, or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms 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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-
viewer.html.

[[Page 10295]]

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on 
NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html.
    Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, 
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit 
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions 
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC 
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an 
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a 
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to 
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others 
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the 
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line, 
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or 
locally, (301) 415-4737.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, 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 petition 
and/or request 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). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later 
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or 
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal 
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, 
or home phone numbers in their filings. 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.
    For further details with respect to this amendment 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.

Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North 
Carolina

    Date of amendments request: August 13, 2007.
    Description of amendments request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3.1.2-1, ``Source Range Monitor 
[SRM] Instrumentation,'' to add a note that specifies the required 
locations of SRMs in Mode 5 during core alterations, and also to make 
an administrative correction to Unit 1 TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 
3.3.1.2.2.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are administrative in nature. There are no 
requirements being added, deleted, or altered as a result of either 
of the proposed changes.
    The change to Table 3.3.1.2-1 adds a footnote to Table 3.3.1.2-1 
which duplicates the Mode 5 operable SRM location requirements 
currently specified in SR 3.3.1.2.2 and discussed in the LCO 
[limiting condition for operation] bases section for TS 3.3.1.2. The 
specific Mode 5 operable SRM location requirements are not being 
changed and are consistent with the requirements provided in the 
current version of NUREG-1433. This change is being done as an aid 
to Operations personnel, to help prevent inadvertently missing the 
requirements.
    The change to SR 3.3.1.2.2 for Unit 1 corrects a typographical 
error to be consistent with other locations within the Unit 1 and 
Unit 2 TSs as well as the current version of NUREG 1433.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical change to the 
SRMs, nor do they alter the assumptions of the accident analyses. 
Therefore, the probability and the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated are not affected.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical change to the 
SRMs, nor do they alter the assumptions of the accident analyses. 
The changes are purely administrative in nature. Therefore, the 
proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are administrative in nature, being done as 
an aid to Operations personnel, to help prevent inadvertently 
missing the Mode 5 operable SRM location requirements and to correct 
a typographical error. There are no requirements being added, 
deleted, or altered as a result of either

[[Page 10296]]

of the proposed changes. As such, the proposed changes do 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: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel 
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office 
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan

    Date of amendment request: January 15, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 
frequency in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY'' from ``7 days after 
the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the [Low 
Power Setpoint] LPSP of [Rod Worth Minimizer] RWM'' to ``31 days after 
the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the LPSP 
of the RWM'' and revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 ``Frequency'' to 
clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval 
extension. The proposed amendment does not adopt the clarification of 
Source Range Monitor (SRM) TS action for inserting control rods, which 
is applicable only to Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)/6 plants. Since Fermi 
2 is a BWR/4 plant, this change in TSTF-475, Revision 1 is not 
applicable and therefore, not adopted.
    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 by a reference to a generic analysis published in the 
Federal Register on November 13, 2007 (72 FR 63935), which is presented 
below:

    Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident 
Previously Evaluated Biweekly Notice Coordinator.
    The proposed change generically implements TSTF-475, Revision 1, 
``Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod 
Action.'' TSTF-475, Revision 1 modifies NUREG-1433 (BWR/4) and 
NUREG-1434 (BWR/6) STS. The changes: (1) Revise TS testing frequency 
for surveillance requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod 
OPERABILITY'', [ ], and (3) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 
``Frequency'' to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance 
test interval extension. The consequences of an accident after 
adopting TSTF-475, Revision 1 are no different than the consequences 
of an accident prior to adoption. Therefore, this change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility 
of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously 
Evaluated.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The 
proposed change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and 
will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an 
accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents 
previously analyzed. Thus, this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
    TSTF-475, Revision 1 will: (1) Revise the TS SR 3.1.3.2 
frequency in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY'', [ ], and (3) 
revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 ``Frequency'' to clarify the 
applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The 
GE Nuclear Energy Report, ``CRD Notching Surveillance Testing for 
Limerick Generating Station,'' dated November 2006, concludes that 
extending the control rod notch test interval from weekly to monthly 
is not expected to impact the reliability of the scram system and 
that the analysis supports the decision to change the surveillance 
frequency. Therefore, the proposed changes in TSTF-475, Revision 1 [ 
] 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 G. Pettinari, Legal Department, 688 
WCB, Detroit Edison Company, 2000 2nd Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226-
1279.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Patrick Milano.

Duke Power Company LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: July 30, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications to allow single header operation of the 
nuclear service water system (NSWS) for a time period of 35 days. The 
change will facilitate future maintenance of the NSWS headers.
    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:

[First Standard]

    Does operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed single supply header operation configuration for 
NSWS operation and the associated proposed TS and Bases changes have 
been evaluated to assess their impact on plant operation and to 
ensure that the design basis safety functions of safety related 
systems are not adversely impacted. During single supply header 
operation, the operating NSWS header will be able to supply all 
required NSWS flow to safety related components. It was demonstrated 
that proposed single failures would not cause the NSWS to be 
rendered incapable of performing its required safety related 
function under accident conditions.
    The purpose of this amendment request is to ultimately 
facilitate inspection and maintenance of the NSWS supply headers. 
Therefore, NRC approval of this request will ultimately help to 
enhance the long-term structural integrity of the NSWS and will help 
to ensure the system's reliability for many years.
    In general, the NSWS serves as an accident mitigation system and 
cannot by itself initiate an accident or transient situation. The 
only exception is that the NSWS piping can serve as a source of 
floodwater to safety related equipment in the auxiliary building or 
in the diesel generator buildings in the event of a leak or a break 
in the system piping. The probability of such an event is not 
significantly increased as a result of this proposed request. NSWS 
piping added in support of the proposed request will be tested and 
maintained in a manner consistent with that for comparable safety 
related piping in the NSWS.
    The proposed 35 day TS Required Action Completion Time has been 
evaluated for risk significance and the results of this evaluation 
have been found acceptable. The probabilities of occurrence of 
accidents presented in the UFSAR will not increase as a result of 
implementation of this change. Because the PRA analysis supporting 
the proposed change yielded acceptable results, the NSWS will 
maintain its required availability in response to accident 
situations. Since NSWS availability is maintained, the response of 
the plant to accident situations will remain acceptable and the 
consequences of accidents presented in the UFSAR will not increase.

[Second Standard]

    Does operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment create the

[[Page 10297]]

possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Implementation of this amendment will not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated. The proposed request does not affect the basic operation 
of the NSWS or any of the systems that it supports. These include 
the Emergency Core Cooling System, the Containment Spray System, the 
Containment Valve Injection Water System, the Auxiliary Feedwater 
System, the Component Cooling Water System, the Control Room Area 
Ventilation System, the Control Room Area Chilled Water System, the 
Auxiliary Building Filtered Ventilation Exhaust System, or the 
Diesel Generators. During proposed single supply header operation, 
the NSWS will remain capable of fulfilling all of its design basis 
requirements, even when assuming the required single failure.
    No new accident causal mechanisms are created as a result of NRC 
approval of this amendment request. No changes are being made to the 
plant which will introduce any new type of accident outside those 
assumed in the UFSAR.

[Third Standard]

    Does operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Implementation of this amendment will not involve a significant 
reduction in any margin of safety. Margin of safety is related to 
the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to 
perform their design functions during and following an accident 
situation. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor 
coolant system, and the containment system. The performance of these 
fission product barriers will not be impacted by implementation of 
this proposed TS amendment. During single supply header operation, 
the NSWS and its supported systems will remain capable of performing 
their required functions even assuming the postulated single 
failure. No safety margins will be impacted.
    The PRA conducted for this proposed amendment demonstrated that 
the impact on overall plant risk remains acceptable during single 
supply header operation. Therefore, there is not a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 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: Melanie C. Wong, Acting.

Duke Power Company LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 27, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.2 (Main Steam Isolation Valves) and TS 
3.7.3 (Main Feedwater Isolation Valves, Main Feedwater Control Valves, 
Associated Bypass Valves and Tempering Valves) by removing the specific 
isolation time for the isolation valves from the associated 
Surveillance Requirements.
    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. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis 
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review is 
presented below.
    Criterion 1: The Proposed Changes Do Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated.
    The proposed changes allow relocating main steam and main feedwater 
valve isolation times to the licensee-controlled document that is 
referenced in the Bases. The proposed changes are described in 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change Traveler 
TSTF-491 related to relocating the main steam and main feedwater valves 
isolation times to the licensee-controlled document that is referenced 
in the Bases and replacing the isolation time with the phrase, ``within 
limits.'' The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater 
isolation valve times to the licensee-controlled document that is 
referenced in the Bases. The requirements to perform the testing of 
these isolation valves are retained in the TSs. Future changes to the 
Bases or licensee-controlled document will be evaluated pursuant to the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, test and experiments,'' to 
ensure that such changes do not result in more than a minimal increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or 
precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely affect 
the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to perform 
their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences of an 
initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed 
changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or 
radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. 
Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and the amounts 
of radioactive effluent that may be released, nor significantly 
increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation 
exposures. Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    Criterion 2: The Proposed Changes Do Not Create the Possibility of 
a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated.
    The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater 
valve isolation times to the licensee-controlled document that is 
referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are 
replaced in the TS with the phrase ``within limits''. The changes do 
not involve a physical altering of the plant (i.e., no new or different 
type of equipment will be installed) or a change in methods governing 
normal plant operation. The requirements in the TSs continue to require 
testing of the main steam and main feedwater isolation valves to ensure 
the proper functioning of these isolation valves. Therefore, the 
changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated.
    Criterion 3: The Proposed Changes Do Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
    The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater 
valve isolation times to the licensee-controlled document that is 
referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are 
replaced in the TSs with the phrase ``within limits.'' Instituting the 
proposed changes will continue to ensure the testing of main steam and 
main feedwater isolation valves. Changes to the Bases or license-
controlled document are performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. This 
approach provides an effective level of regulatory control and ensures 
that main steam and feedwater isolation valve testing is conducted such 
that there is no significant reduction in the margin of safety. The 
margin of safety provided by the isolation valves is unaffected by the 
proposed changes since there continue to be TS requirements to ensure 
the testing of main steam and main

[[Page 10298]]

feedwater isolation valves. The proposed changes maintain sufficient 
controls to preserve the current margins of safety.
    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: Melanie C. Wong, Acting.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, 
Illinois

    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment revises 
Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements (SR) 3.8.4.2 and 
3.8.4.5 to add an additional acceptance criterion to verify that total 
battery connector resistance is within pre-established limits that 
ensure the batteries can perform their design functions. The proposed 
amendment is in response to a non-cited violation that was documented 
in NRC Component Design Bases Inspection Report 05000254/2006003(DRS), 
05000265/2006003(DRS).
    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 revisions of SR 3.8.4.2 and SR 3.8.4.5 to add a battery 
connector resistance acceptance criterion will not challenge the 
ability of the safety-related batteries to perform their safety 
function. Appropriate monitoring and maintenance will continue to be 
performed on the safety-related batteries. In addition, the safety-
related batteries are within the scope of 10 CFR 50.65, 
``Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at 
nuclear power plants,'' which will ensure the control of maintenance 
activities associated with this equipment.
    Current TS requirements will not be altered and will continue to 
require that the equipment be regularly monitored and tested. Since 
the proposed change does not alter the manner in which the batteries 
are operated, there is no significant impact on reactor operation.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the 
batteries, nor does it change the safety function of the batteries. 
The proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the 
operation of any systems or components in normal or accident 
operating conditions and no changes to existing structures, systems, 
or components.
    Therefore, these changes 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 changes revising SR 3.8.4.2 and SR 3.8.4.5 to add 
an additional acceptance criterion for battery connector resistance 
is an increase in conservatism, without a change in system testing 
methods, operation, or control. Safety-related batteries installed 
in the plant will be required to meet criteria more restrictive and 
conservative than current acceptance criteria and standards. The 
proposed change does not affect the manner in which the batteries 
are tested and maintained; therefore, there are no new failure 
mechanisms for the system.
    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 margin of safety is established through the design of the 
plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within 
which the plant is operated, and the setpoints for the actuation of 
equipment relied upon to respond to an event. The proposed change 
does not modify the safety limits or setpoints at which protective 
actions are initiated. The change is conservative and further 
ensures safety-related battery operability and availability.
    As such, sufficient DC capacity to support operation of 
mitigation equipment is enhanced, which results in an increase in 
the margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: December 20, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) 
requests a change, consistent with the adoption of TSTF-475, Revision 
1, an approved change to the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) 
for General Electric (GE) Plants (NUREG-1433, BWR/4) and plant specific 
technical specifications (TS), that allows: (1) Revising the frequency 
of Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2, notch testing of fully 
withdrawn control rod, from ``7 days after the control rod is withdrawn 
and THERMAL POWER is greater than 20% [Rated Thermal Power] RTP'' to 
``31 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is 
greater than 20% RTP'' and (2) revising Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 
``Frequency'' to clarify that the 1.25 surveillance test interval 
extension in SR 3.0.2 is applicable to time periods discussed in NOTES 
in the ``SURVEILLANCE'' column in addition to the time periods in the 
``FREQUENCY'' column.
    The NRC staff acknowledges that, in item (1) above, the wording 
that is to be adopted by the Duane Arnold TS in SR 3.1.3.2 (``31 days 
after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than 
20% RTP'') is a deviation from the language in the Improved STS (``31 
days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater 
than the [Low Power Setpoint] LPSP of the [Rod Worth Minimizer] RWM.'') 
This deviation from NUREG-1433 was incorporated into the DAEC TS by 
Amendment 223 dated May 22, 1998, in the conversion of the DAEC TS to 
the Improved STS.
    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 (NSHC) through incorporation by reference of the NSHC 
determination (NSHCD) published in the Federal Register Notice dated 
November 13, 2007, that announced the availability of TS improvement 
through the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). The 
NSHCD, with references to BWR/6 information deleted and with clarifying 
comments inserted within brackets [ ], 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 generically implements TSTF-475, Revision 1, 
``Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod 
Action.'' TSTF-475, Revision 1 modifies NUREG-1433 (BWR/4)

[[Page 10299]]

STS. The changes: (1) Revise TS testing frequency for surveillance 
requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY'' 
and (2) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 ``Frequency'' to clarify 
the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension.
    The consequences of an accident after adopting TSTF-475, 
Revision 1 are no different than the consequences of an accident 
prior to adoption. Therefore, this 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) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The 
proposed change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and 
will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an 
accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents 
previously analyzed. Thus, this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    TSTF-475, Revision 1 [, as adopted by DAEC TS,] will: (1) Revise 
the TS SR 3.1.3.2 frequency in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY'' 
and (2) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 ``Frequency'' to clarify 
the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension.
    The GE Nuclear Energy Report, ``CRD Notching Surveillance 
Testing for Limerick Generating Station,'' dated November 2006, 
concludes that extending the control rod notch test interval from 
weekly to monthly is not expected to impact the reliability of the 
scram system and that the analysis supports the decision to change 
the surveillance frequency. Therefore, the proposed changes in TSTF-
475, Revision 1 [, as adopted by DAEC TS,] 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: Marjan Mashhadi, Florida Power & Light 
Company, 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Patrick Milano.

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, 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.

Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendment: November 15, 2007, as 
supplemented by letter dated December 21, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment is a one-time change 
that revised Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.1.7, ``Rod Position 
Indication.'' The requirements related to one inoperable bank demand 
position indicator (DPI) are modified by a footnote to allow two DPIs 
to be inoperable per bank for one or more banks on a temporary basis 
during the current operating cycle (Cycle 25). This provision allows 
for corrective maintenance on three inoperable DPIs in the rod position 
indication system that necessitates removing both DPIs for the affected 
rod banks from service during the repair. This amendment expires at the 
end of operating Cycle 25.
    Date of issuance: January 29, 2008.
    Effective date: Effective as of the date of issuance and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No. 217.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: The amendment 
revises the Technical Specifications and Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 28, 2007 (72 
FR 67321).
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final NSHC 
determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated January 29, 
2008.
    Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel 
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office 
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power 
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin

    Date of application for amendment: October 2, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical 
Specification Sections 3.7, ``Auxiliary Electrical Systems,'' and 4.6, 
``Periodic Testing of Emergency Power System,'' to change the testing 
requirements for ensuring operability of the remaining operable 
emergency diesel generator (EDG) when the other EDG is inoperable. In 
addition, the amendment adds a new specification when two EDGs are 
inoperable and revises the surveillance requirements for the EDGs.
    Date of issuance: February 7, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 194.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: Amendment revised the 
License and Technical Specifications.

[[Page 10300]]

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (72 
FR 65363)
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 7, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: February 16, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment would revise 
Technical Specification 3/4.4.3, ``Reactor Coolant System, Relief 
Valves'' to modify the method of testing the pressurizer Power Operated 
Relief Valves (PORVs). Specifically, the requirement for bench testing 
the valves is changed to accommodate testing of the PORVs while 
installed in the plant. The change is requested due to the installation 
of new PORVs that are welded to the piping rather than bolted into the 
system.
    Date of issuance: February 12, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 302.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised the 
License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 19, 2007 (72 
FR 65084).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 12, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: April 24, 2007, as supplemented by 
letter dated August 2, 2007, and electronic mail dated January 8, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments relocate the Fuel 
Handling Area Ventilation System and associated Ventilation Filter 
Testing Program requirements that are included in the Unit 1 Technical 
Specifications (TS) 3.7.12 and 5.5.11 and the Unit 2 TS 3.9.11 and 
6.5.11 to the unit-specific Technical Requirements Manuals (TRMs). The 
TRMs are licensee-controlled documents which are controlled under 10 
CFR 50.59, ``Changes, tests, and experiments.''
    Date of issuance: February 4, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-231; Unit 2-274.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6: 
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2007 (72 FR 
31098). The supplemental letter dated August 2, 2007, and electronic 
mail dated January 8, 2008, provided additional information that 
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application 
as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed 
no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments 
is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 4, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: October 24, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the 
containment buffering agent used for pH control under post loss-of-
coolant accident (LOCA) conditions, from trisodium phosphate to sodium 
tetraborate.
    Date of issuance: February 7, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented prior to entry into Mode 4 following completion of the 
spring 2008 refueling outage.
    Amendment No.: 253.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26: The amendment revised the 
License and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (72 FR 
68211).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 7, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: July 25, 2007, as supplemented 
November 1, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment would modify 
the Technical Specifications by adding an Action Statement to the 
Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) for TS 3.7.4, ``Control Room 
Air Conditioning (AC) System.'' Specifically, the new Action statement 
allows 72 hours to restore one control room air conditioning subsystem 
to operable status and requires verification that the control room 
temperature remains below 90 [deg]F every 4 hours during the period of 
inoperability. The change is consistent with NRC-approved Revision 3 to 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications Change Traveler, TSTF-477, ``Add Action Statement for 
Two Inoperable Control Room Air Conditioning Subsystems.''
    Date of issuance: January 23, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 290.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment revises the 
License and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72 
FR 51855).
    The November 1, 2007, supplement provided additional information 
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the 
application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 23, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Plant, 
Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of application for amendment: November 6, 2006, supplemented 
by letters dated August 10, 2007, and December 20, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment would revise Appendix 
A, technical specification (TS), Core Operating Limits Report 
analytical methods referenced in TS 5.6.5.b to add EMF-2103 (P)(A), 
``Realistic Large Break LOCA Methodology for Pressurized Water 
Reactors.''
    Date of issuance: January 31, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 229.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the 
technical specifications.

[[Page 10301]]

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 19, 2006 (71 
FR 75995)
    The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and 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 January 31, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 
and 2, Will County, Illinois.
    Date of application for amendment: January 8, 2007 as supplemented 
by letter dated October 12, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments extended the reactor 
trip system and engineered safety features actuation system completion 
times, bypass test times, and surveillance test intervals for technical 
specifications (TS) 3.3.1, ``RTS Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.2, ``ESFAS 
Instrumentation,'' and TS 3.3.6, ``Containment Ventilation Isolation 
Instrumentation.''
    Date of issuance: January 29, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 153, 153, 148, and 148.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37, NPF-66, NPF-72 and NPF-77: 
The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 27, 2007 (72 FR 
14305).
    The October 12, 2007, supplement, contained clarifying information 
and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no 
significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 29, 2008.
    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: November 12, 2007.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise TS 3.1.3.2, 
``Position Indication Systems--Operating,'' to allow for the use of an 
alternate method, other than the movable incore detectors, to monitor 
the position of a control rod or shutdown rod in the event of a problem 
with the analog rod position indication system. The use of this 
alternate method will reduce the required frequency of flux mapping 
using the movable incore detectors to determine the position of the 
non-indicating rod, thus reducing the wear on the movable incore 
detector system that is also used to complete other required TS 
surveillances.
    Date of issuance: January 28, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos: 237 and 232.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 28, 2007 (72 
FR 67323).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 28, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: September 19, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Limiting 
Condition for Operation 3.10.1 to expand its scope to include 
provisions for temperature excursions greater than 200 [deg]F as a 
consequence of inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, and as a 
consequence of scram time testing initiated in conjunction with an 
inservice leak or hydrostatic test, while considering operational 
conditions to be in Mode 4, using the Consolidated Line Item 
Improvement Process.
    Date of issuance: February 7, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
60 days.
    Amendment No.: 121.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revised 
the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (72 
FR 65368).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 7, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: February 15, 2007, as 
supplemented on November 30, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.4.2, ``DC [Direct 
Current] Sources--Operating,'' to specify that the Division 1 battery 
chargers are verified to supply >=150 amps and the Division 2 battery 
chargers are verified to supply >=110 amps.
    Date of issuance: January 30, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 153.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 24, 2007 (72 FR 
20384).
    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 amendment is contained in a 
Safety Evaluation dated January 30, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 21, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical 
Specifications (TS) safety limit (SL) requirements related to the use 
of a non-cycle specific peak linear heat rate (PLHR) SL of 22 kW/ft to 
fuel centerline melt (FCM). The TS change is consistent with the 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 445-A, Revision 1. Because 
these Limiting Safety Systems Setting (LSSS) values appear in the FCS 
TS Bases Sections of TS 1.3, TS 1.0, Safety Limits and Limiting Safety 
System Settings, was also revised to more clearly align with the 
Combustion Engineering (CE) Standard Technical Specifications (STS) 2.0 
in content. Therefore, TS Section 1.1, Safety Limits--Reactor Core, is 
revised to incorporate the TSTF-445-A, Revision 1, peak fuel centerline 
temperature criteria and TS 1.2, Safety Limits--Reactor Coolant System 
Pressure, is revised to incorporate the SL violation

[[Page 10302]]

action which is currently delineated in administrative control TS 
5.7.1. TS Section 1.3, Limiting Safety System Settings, was relocated 
to the currently unused TS Section 2.13 to be more consistent with the 
content of the CE STS (i.e., the LSSS will be located in the Limiting 
Conditions for Operation (LCO) section of the FCS TS which is similar 
to the LCO/Surveillance Requirements Section 3.0 of the STS). As noted 
above, the administrative control in TS 5.7.1, Safety Limit Violation, 
is relocated. Also, administrative control TS 5.9.5, Core Operating 
Limits Report (COLR), item a., is revised to add TS 2.13, RPS Limiting 
Safety System Settings, Table 2-11, Items 6, 8, and 9, to the list of 
items that shall be documented in the COLR. The TS Table of Contents 
(TOC) is also updated to reflect the deletion and subsequent 
renumbering of Section 1.3 and Table 1-1 to TS 2.13 and Table 2-11, 
respectively. The TOC is also updated to delineate the new TS 
subsections 1.1.1 and 1.1.2, provide the revised titles for TS 1.0, 
1.1, 1.2, and 2.13, and to reflect TS 5.7.1 as ``Not used.''
    Date of issuance: February 4, 2008.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and prior to startup 
from the 2008 refueling outage.
    Amendment No.: 252.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2007 (72 FR 
62690). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a safety evaluation dated February 4, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County, 
Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendme