Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 21657-21668 [E8-8388]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21657-21668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-8388]


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

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 March 27, 2008, to April 9, 2008. The last 
biweekly notice was published on April 8, 2008 (73 FR 19106).

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-
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

[[Page 21658]]

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 Viewer\TM\ to 
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer\TM\ is free and is available 
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. 
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on 
NRC's public Web site at 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:

[[Page 21659]]

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.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont

    Date of amendment request: February 12, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specification (TS) Sections 2.1, ``Limiting Safety 
System Setting,'' 3.1, ``Reactor Protection System,'' 3.2, ``Protective 
Instrument Systems,'' associated Surveillance Requirements, and other 
TS with similar requirements as these instrumentation TS sections.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration which is presented below:

    1. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not significantly affect the design or 
fundamental operation and maintenance of the plant. Accident 
initiators or the frequency of analyzed accident events are not 
significantly affected as a result of the proposed changes; 
therefore, there will be no significant change to the probabilities 
of accidents previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not significantly alter assumptions or 
initial conditions relative to the mitigation of an accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed changes continue to ensure 
process variables, structures, systems, and components (SSCs) are 
maintained consistent with the safety analyses and licensing basis. 
The revised technical specifications continue to require that SSCs 
are properly maintained to ensure operability and performance of 
safety functions as assumed in the safety analyses. Since the design 
basis events analyzed in the safety analyses will not change 
significantly, the consequences of these events will not change as a 
result of the proposed changes to the TS.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different types of equipment being installed) 
and do not involve a change in the design, normal configuration or 
basic operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not introduce 
any new accident initiators. In some cases, the proposed changes 
impose different or more restrictive requirements; however, these 
new requirements are consistent with the assumptions in the safety 
analyses and current licensing basis. Where requirements are 
relocated to other licensee-controlled documents, adequate controls 
exist to ensure proper maintenance of the requirements and continued 
operability of the associated equipment.
    The proposed changes do not involve significant changes in the 
fundamental methods governing normal plant operations and do not 
require unusual or uncommon operator actions. The proposed changes 
provide assurance that the plant will not be operated in a mode or 
condition that violates the essential assumptions or initial 
conditions in the safety analyses and that SSCs remain capable of 
performing the intended safety functions as assumed in the same 
analyses. Consequently, the response of the plant and the plant 
operator to postulated events will not be significantly different.
    Therefore, the proposed TS change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a 
significant reduction in a 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. The proposed changes do 
not significantly affect any of the assumptions, initial conditions 
or inputs to the safety analyses. Plant design is unaffected by 
these proposed changes and will continue to provide adequate 
defense-in-depth and diversity of safety functions as assumed in the 
safety analyses; therefore no significant reduction in the margin of 
safety will result.
    There are no proposed changes to the Safety Limits and only 
administrative and one more restrictive change to Limiting System 
Setting requirements. The proposed changes maintain requirements 
consistent with safety analyses assumptions and the licensing basis. 
Fission product barriers will continue to meet their design 
capabilities without any significant impact to their ability to 
maintain parameters within acceptable limits. The safety functions 
are maintained within acceptable limits without any significant 
decrease in capability.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Mark G. Kowal.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 20, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request would 
revise

[[Page 21660]]

the technical specifications (TSs) to adopt NRC-approved Revision 1 to 
TS Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler 
TSTF-476, ``Improved Banked Position Withdrawal Sequence (BPWS) Control 
Rod Insertion Process (NEDO-33091).'' The amendment would revise an 
applicability footnote in the TS Table 3.3.2.1-1, ``Control Rod Block 
Instrumentation,'' to permit use of an improved, optional BPWS reactor 
shutdown process. Corresponding changes are made to the Bases of TS 
3.1.6, ``Control Rod Pattern,'' and the Bases of TS 3.3.2.1, to 
reference the new BPWS shutdown method.
    The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the 
Federal Register on May 3, 2006 (71 FR 26118), on possible license 
amendments adopting TSTF-476 using the NRC's consolidated line item 
improvement process for amending licensee's TSs, which included a model 
safety evaluation (SE) and a model no significant hazards consideration 
(NSHC) determination. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of 
availability of the models for referencing in license amendment 
applications in the Federal Register on May 23, 2007 (72 FR 29004-
29010), which included the resolution of public comments on the model 
SE. The May 23, 2007, notice of availability referenced the May 3, 
2006, notice. The licensee has affirmed the applicability of the 
following NSHC determination in its application.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated
    The proposed changes modify the TS to allow the use of the improved 
banked position withdrawal sequence (BPWS) during shutdowns if the 
conditions of NEDO-33091-A, Revision 2, ``Improved BPWS Control Rod 
Insertion Process,'' July 2004, have been satisfied. The staff finds 
that the licensee's justifications to support the specific TS changes 
are consistent with the approved topical report and TSTF-476, Revision 
1. Since the change only involves changes in control rod sequencing, 
the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased, if at all. The consequences of an accident 
after adopting TSTF-476 are no different than the consequences of an 
accident prior to adopting TSTF-476. Therefore, the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this 
change. 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 Previously Evaluated
    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 evaluated. The control rod drop accident (CRDA) is the 
design basis accident for the subject TS changes. This change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an 
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
    The proposed change, TSTF-476, Revision 1, incorporates the 
improved BPWS, previously approved in NEDO-33091-A, into the improved 
TS. The control rod drop accident (CRDA) is the design basis accident 
for the subject TS changes. In order to minimize the impact of a CRDA, 
the BPWS process was developed to minimize control rod reactivity worth 
for BWR plants. The proposed improved BPWS further simplifies the 
control rod insertion process, and in order to evaluate it, the staff 
followed the guidelines of Standard Review Plan Section 15.4.9, and 
referred to General Design Criterion 28 of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 50 
as its regulatory requirement. The TSTF stated the improved BPWS 
provides the following benefits: (1) Allows the plant to reach the all-
rods-in condition prior to significant reactor cool down, which reduces 
the potential for re-criticality as the reactor cools down; (2) reduces 
the potential for an operator reactivity control error by reducing the 
total number of control rod manipulations; (3) minimizes the need for 
manual scrams during plant shutdowns, resulting in less wear on control 
rod drive (CRD) system components and CRD mechanisms; and (4) 
eliminates unnecessary control rod manipulations at low power, 
resulting in less wear on reactor manual control and CRD system 
components. The addition of procedural requirements and verifications 
specified in NEDO-33091-A, along with the proper use of the BPWS will 
prevent a control rod drop accident (CRDA) from occurring while power 
is below the low power setpoint (LPSP). The net change to the margin of 
safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request 
involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: March 24, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.7.3, ``Reactor Equipment 
Cooling (REC) System,'' to allow credit for the ability to align the 
service water (SW) system to the REC 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Four design basis accidents have been previously evaluated at 
CNS [Cooper Nuclear Station]. These are (1) a control rod drop 
accident, in which a control rod inserted into the reactor core 
becomes uncoupled and drops out of the reactor core during 
operation; (2) a loss-of-coolant accident [LOCA], in which a pipe in 
the reactor coolant system breaks, resulting in a loss of reactor 
coolant inventory and the ability to cool the nuclear fuel; (3) a 
fuel handling accident, in which a fuel assembly is dropped during 
fuel handling operations and impacts fuel assemblies in the reactor 
core; and (4) a main steam line break accident, in which a main 
steam line breaks resulting in the discharge of steam at high 
pressure and temperature.
    The proposed license amendment makes no changes to the design or 
operation of the control rod drive system. Thus, there is no 
increase in the probability of a control rod drop accident.
    The proposed license amendment makes no changes to the design or 
operation of the reactor coolant system. Thus, there is no increase 
in the probability of a loss-of-coolant accident. (The design basis 
LOCA does not involve a postulated break in the systems associated 
with the proposed license amendment).
    The proposed license amendment makes no changes to the design of 
the fuel handling

[[Page 21661]]

system, or to the method of moving fuel. Thus, there is no increase 
in the probability of a fuel handling accident.
    The proposed license amendment makes no changes to the design of 
the main steam system or to how the reactor is operated. Thus, there 
is no increase in the probability of a main steam line break 
accident.
    Based on the above, the proposed changes do not result in a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The SW System is able to supply sufficient cooling to perform 
the function of the REC System to remove the heat generated by the 
ECCS [emergency core cooling system] pumps, as well as providing 
sufficient cooling to the heat loads in the SW System. Aligning the 
SW System to the REC System sooner than the current seven days, as 
will be allowed by the proposed changes to the TS, will not 
adversely impact the ability of the ECCS pumps to meet their 
function.
    Because the function of the REC System is to remove the heat 
generated by the ECCS pumps from the rooms in which the pumps are 
located, the REC system is indirectly involved in the mitigation of 
an accident.
    Based on the above, the change does not involve a significant 
increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    NPPD [Nebraska Public Power District] concludes that the 
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    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 license amendment would allow continued plant 
operation with leakage from the REC System in excess of limits, 
provided that the required cooling water can be supplied by the SW 
System. This involves revising the actions for mitigating a LOCA, in 
that the SW System may need to be aligned to the REC System sooner 
than 7 days following a LOCA, as is required by the current 
licensing basis. Allowing leakage from the REC System to exceed 
limits and requiring that the SW System be aligned to the REC System 
sooner than what is currently required by the licensing basis does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any previously evaluated.
    The proposed license amendment request does not involve physical 
modification of any system in the plant, nor do they involve a 
change to how the plant is operated. No new equipment is being 
added. Use of the SW System to supply water to the REC System in the 
event of REC leakage is part of the current CNS design and licensing 
basis.
    Based on the above NPPD concludes that these proposed changes do 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This proposed license amendment would revise TS to allow 
continued plant operation with leakage from the REC System in excess 
of limits, provided that the SW System can be aligned to the REC 
System and supply the cooling water required by the REC System to 
meet its safety function. The safety function of the REC System is 
to remove the heat generated by the ECCS pumps from the rooms in 
which the pumps are located. This proposed change to TS revises the 
timing for taking an action involved in mitigating a LOCA, in that 
the SW System may need to be aligned to the REC System sooner than 
seven days following a LOCA, as currently allowed by license 
requirements. It has been demonstrated that this alignment can be 
made sooner than the current required seven days. Making this 
alignment sooner than seven days does not adversely impact the 
ability to mitigate a LOCA.
    Based on the above, NPPD concludes that these proposed changes 
do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2, Louisa County, 
Virginia

    Date of amendment request: March 19, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
delete the main control room/emergency switchgear room (MCR/ESGR) 
bottled air system from Technical Specifications. Operation of the 
bottled air system will be controlled by the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report.
    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 license amendment involve a significant 
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 of the facility. The 
proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, 
systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their required safety 
function of mitigating the consequences of an initiating event 
within the established acceptance limits. The proposed changes to 
the MCR/ESGR Bottled Air System and Emergency Ventilation System 
[EVS] do not affect the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated because the subject SSCs are not an initiator or precursor 
to any accident previously evaluated. The Technical Specifications 
changes noted above will ensure the SSCs are operable to mitigate 
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 license amendment create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Deletion of the MCR/ESGR Bottled Air System does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The other 
proposed changes do not alter the operability requirements of the 
MCR/ESGR emergency ventilation system or MCR/ESGR isolation. 
Therefore, the control room habitability systems remain operable to 
mitigate the consequences of a [design-basis accident] DBA. The 
changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant systems 
credited in the accident analysis (i.e., no new or different type of 
equipment will be installed) or a significant change in the methods 
governing normal plant operation. The MCR/ESGR EVS is maintained in 
a standby mode and its operation does not generate any new accidents 
or accident precursors.
    Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The current dose analysis acceptance 
criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes 
will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the 
analyses or design basis. The proposed changes do not adversely 
affect systems that are required to respond for safe shutdown of the 
plant and to maintain the plant in a safe operating condition.

    Therefore, this change does 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, 
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Millstone Power Station, Building 
475, 5th Floor, Rope Ferry Road, Rt. 156, Waterford, Connecticut 06385.
    NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.

[[Page 21662]]

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

    The following notices were previously published as separate 
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were 
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the 
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action 
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the 
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued 
involving no significant hazards consideration.
    For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on 
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period 
of the original notice.

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

Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear 
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: February 15, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment request: The amendments authorized a 
change to the UFSAR requiring an inspection of each ice condenser 
within 24 hours of experiencing a seismic event greater than or equal 
to an operating basis earthquake within the five (5) week period after 
ice basket replenishment has been completed to confirm that adverse ice 
fallout has not occurred which could impede the ability of the ice 
condenser lower inlet doors to open. This action would be taken, in 
lieu of requiring a five week waiting period following ice basket 
replenishment, prior to beginning ascension to power operations.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: 
February 26, 2008 (73 FR 10302).
    Expiration date of individual notice: April 28, 2008.

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.

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

    Date of application for amendment: June 12, 2007, as supplemented 
on December 12, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the P-7 and 
P-10 nuclear instrumentation system permissive setpoints in Technical 
Specification (TS) Table 3.5-2, ``Instrument Operation Conditions for 
Reactor Trip,'' revised the Table format and added a footnote 
explaining that the turbine impulse pressure setting limit is converted 
to an equivalent turbine impulse pressure, and revised TS 2.3, 
``Instrumentation System,'' concerning reactor trip interlocks to be 
consistent with the proposed changes to TS Table 3.5-2.
    Date of issuance: March 28, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 195.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: Amendment revised the 
License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR 
49570)
    The December 12, 2007, letter provided clarifying information that 
did not change the scope of the proposed amendment as described in the 
original notice of proposed action published in the Federal Register 
(72 FR 49570) and did not change the initial proposed no significant 
hazards determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: September 24, 2007, as 
supplemented on January 18, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to add a reference to Dominion Topical Report DOM-
NAF-5, ``Application of Dominion Nuclear Core Design and Safety 
Analysis Methods to the Kewaunee Power Station (KPS),'' to the list of 
approved analytical methods. The amendment permits the application of 
the Dominion nuclear core design and safety analysis methods, including 
the methodology to perform core thermal-hydraulic analysis to predict 
critical heat flux and departure from nucleate boiling ratio for the 
Westinghouse 422 V+ fuel design. In addition, the amendment: (1) 
Accommodates the use of the methodologies in DOM-NAF-5; (2) deletes one 
approved analytical method that will no longer be used; and (3) deletes 
date and revision numbers from the current TS list of approved 
analytical methods, consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF) Change 
Traveler TSTF-363-A, Revision 0, ``Revise Topical Report References in 
ITS [improved TSs] 5.6.5, COLR [Core Operating Limits Report],'' dated 
August 4, 2003, and adds a TS that requires complete identification of 
those analytical methods in the COLR.
    Date of issuance: March 28, 2008.

[[Page 21663]]

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 196.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 23, 2007 (72 FR 
60034). The January 18, 2008, supplement provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: March 17, 2006, as supplemented 
on April 17 and September 17, 2007, and February 1 and March 10, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Appendix B, 
``Special Design Procedures,'' of the Updated Safety Analysis Report 
(USAR) to modify the design criteria for internal flooding evaluations. 
The revisions included modifications to Section B.5, ``Protection of 
Class I Items,'' and Section B.11, ``Internal Flooding.''
    Date of issuance: March 28, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and will be implemented 
by incorporating the revisions into the next update of the USAR, as 
required by 10 CFR 50.71(c).
    Amendment No.: 197.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: Amendment revised the USAR 
and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 25, 2006 (71 FR 
23954). The letters dated April 17 and September 17, 2007, and February 
1 and March 10, 2008, provided clarifying information that did not 
change the scope of the proposed amendment as described in the original 
notice of proposed action published in the Federal Register and did not 
change the initial proposed no significant hazards determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 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 application for amendment: March 28, 2007, as supplemented 
by letter dated March 10, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the 
Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.1.e to allow 
performance of testing for nozzle blockage to be based on the 
occurrence of activities that could potentially result in nozzle 
blockage rather than a fixed periodic basis.
    Date of issuance: March 31, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 303.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised 
the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 15, 2008 (73 FR 
2549). The March 10, 2008, 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 amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

    Date of application for amendments: February 15, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments would authorize a 
change to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) requiring an 
inspection of each ice condenser unit within 24 hours of experiencing a 
seismic event greater than or equal to an operating basis earthquake 
within the 5-week period after ice basket replenishment has been 
completed to confirm that adverse ice fallout has not occurred which 
could impede the ability of the ice condenser lower inlet doors to 
open. This action would be taken, in lieu of requiring a 5-week waiting 
period following ice basket replenishment, prior to beginning ascension 
to power operations.
    Date of issuance: April 2, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 246, 226.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 26, 2008 (73 
FR 10302). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 2, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear 
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

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

Oconee Nuclear Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 
License No. SNM-2503, Docket No. 72-4, Oconee County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendments: March 14, 2007.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments would revise the 
licenses to reflect the change in the name of the licensee from Duke 
Power Company LLC to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. The proposed 
amendments are a name change only. There is no change in the state of 
incorporation, registered agent, registered office, rights, or 
liabilities of the company. Nor is there a change in the function of 
the licensee or the way in which it does business.
    Date of issuance: March 28, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 240, 234.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: 
Amendments revised the licenses.
    Amendment Nos.: 245, 225.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the licenses.
    Amendment Nos.: 361, 363, 362.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
Amendments revised the licenses.
    Amendment No.: 9.
    Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation License No. SNM-2503: 
Amendment revised the license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (72 FR 
68210).

[[Page 21664]]

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: July 31, 2007, as supplemented 
by letters dated July 31, 2007, and March 11, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The proposed changes revised 
Technical Specification 6.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' 
which would add new analytical methods to support the implementation of 
Next Generation Fuel.
    Date of issuance: March 26, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to startup following the spring 2008 refueling outage.
    Amendment No.: 276.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications, Facility Operating License, and the Final 
Safety Analysis Report.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR 
49576). The supplemental letters dated July 31, 2007, and March 11, 
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 amendment is contained in a 
Safety Evaluation dated March 26, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: April 24, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.2.1, ``Fuel Assemblies,'' to add Optimized 
ZIRLOTM as an acceptable fuel rod cladding material.
    Date of issuance: March 26, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 277.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications/license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2007 (72 FR 
31099). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 26, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: October 5, 2007, as supplemented 
by letter dated February 19, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TS) 3.6.2.2, ``Containment Sump Buffering Agent 
Trisodium Phosphate (TSP)'' and its associated Surveillance Requirement 
4.6.2.2 to replace references to TSP with the sodium tetraborate (NaTB) 
buffering agent. The required volume of NaTB has also been changed to 
reflect the new buffer. In addition, the title has been changed to 
remove the reference to TSP.
    Date of issuance: March 31, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
following completion of the 2R19 refueling outage in spring 2008.
    Amendment No.: 278.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications/license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2007 (72 FR 
62688). The supplemental letter dated February 19, 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 amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation 
dated March 31, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: October 22, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4 and 
Surveillance Requirement 4.0.4 to adopt the provisions of Industry/TS 
Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-359, ``Increased Flexibility in Mode 
Restraints.'' This operating license improvement was made available by 
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on April 4, 2003, as part of the 
consolidated line item improvement process.
    Date of issuance: April 2, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 1--232.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised 
the Technical Specifications/license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 18, 2007 (72 
FR 71709). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 2, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: May 8, 2007, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 28, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Unit 2, Technical Specification 3.1.1.4, ``Moderator 
Temperature Coefficient (MTC).'' Specifically, the change modified the 
surveillance frequency to be based on effective full power days instead 
of boron concentration.
    Date of issuance: March 31, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 279.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications/license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2007 (72 FR 
31099). The supplemental letter dated March 28, 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 amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation 
dated March 31, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station (Braidwood), Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: April 4, 2007, as supplemented 
by letters dated October 10, 2007, January 31, and February 26, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revise Technical

[[Page 21665]]

Specification 5.5.16, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to 
reflect a one-time, 5-year extension of the current containment Type A 
test (containment integrated leakage rate test (ILRT)) interval 
requirement, under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 
50, Appendix J, Option B, from 10 years to 15 years. The amendments 
allow the next Type A ILRT to be performed within 15 years of the most 
recent Type A test at Braidwood, but no later than October 5, 2013, for 
Unit 1, and no later than May 4, 2014, for Unit 2.
    Date of issuance: April 2, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-149; Unit 2-149.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77: The amendment 
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2007 (72 FR 
31100). The October 10, 2007, January 31, and February 26, 2008, 
supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did not 
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 2, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-412, 
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania.

    Date of application for amendment: June 14, 2006, as supplemented 
by letters dated July 20, July 26, December 21, 2007, and March 11, 
2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment will revise Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to incorporate the results of a new spent fuel 
pool (SFP) criticality analysis documented in WCAP-16518-P, ``Beaver 
Valley Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Criticality Analysis,'' Revision 2 for 
BVPS-2. The new criticality analysis will permit utilization of vacant 
storage locations dictated by the existing TS storage configurations in 
the BVPS-2 SFP.
    Date of issuance: March 27, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No: 165.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-73. Amendment revised the 
License and TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 15, 2006 (71 FR 
46935). The supplements dated July 20, July 26, December 21, 2007, and 
March 11, 2008, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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 March 27, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: March 29, 2007, as supplemented by 
letter dated January 9, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revises the 
Seabrook Station, Unit No 1, Technical Specifications to increase the 
power level required for a reactor trip following a turbine trip (P-9 
setpoint).
    Date of issuance: March 27, 2008.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 117.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the 
License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (72 FR 
41785). The licensee's January 9, 2008, supplement provided clarifying 
information that did not change the scope of the proposed amendment as 
described in the original notice of proposed action published in the 
Federal Register, and did not change the initial proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, 
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell 
County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: April 10, 2007, as supplemented by 
letters dated July 31, August 16, November 15 (two letters), and 
November 19, 2007, and February 11, March 6, March 13, and March 26, 
2008.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.1, ``Reactivity Control Systems,'' TS 3.2, ``Power 
Distribution Limits,'' TS 3.3, ``Instrumentation,'' and TS 5.6.5b, 
``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to incorporate standard 
Westinghouse-developed and NRC-approved analytical methods into the 
list of methodologies used to establish the core operating limits.
    Date of issuance: April 2, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to startup from refueling outage 10 for Comanche Peak Steam 
Electric Station, Unit 2.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--144; Unit 2--144.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2007 (72 FR 
45461). The supplemental letters dated July 31, August 16, November 15 
(two letters), and November 19, 2007, and February 11, March 6, March 
13, and March 26, 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 on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45461). The Commission's 
related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety 
Evaluation dated April 2, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, 
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell 
County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: August 16, 2007, as supplemented by 
letter dated December 13, 2007.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.1.4, ``Rod Group Alignment Limits,'' Table 3.3.1-
1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,'' Table 3.3.2-1, ``Engineered 
Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation,'' TS 3.4.10, 
``Pressurizer Safety Valves,'' TS 3.7.1, ``Main S