Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 29158-29168 [E8-11246]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 20, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29158-29168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11246]


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

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 April 24 to May 7, 2008. The last biweekly 
notice was published on May 6, 2008 (73 FR 25034).

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 T6-D44, 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 O1-F21, 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 O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's 
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, 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

[[Page 29159]]

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. 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.

[[Page 29160]]

    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.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station 
(CPS), Unit No.1, DeWitt County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: January 26, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification 3.3.1.1, ``Reactor Protection System 
(RPS) Instrumentation,'' Table 3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor Protection System 
Instrumentation,'' Function 8, ``Scram Discharge Volume Water Level--
High,'' item b, ``Float Switch,'' by replacing Surveillance Requirement 
(SR) 3.3.1.1.9 with SR 3.3.1.1.12. This change will effectively revise 
the surveillance frequency for the scram discharge volume level float 
switch from every 92 days to every 24 months.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS change involves a change in the surveillance 
frequency for the SDV water level float switch channel functional 
test. The proposed TS change does not physically impact the plant. 
The proposed change does not affect the design of the SDV water 
level instruments, the operational characteristics or function of 
the instruments, the interfaces between the instruments and the RPS, 
or the reliability of the SDV water level instruments. The proposed 
TS change does not degrade the performance of, or increase the 
challenges to, any safety systems assumed to function in the 
accident analysis. As noted in the Bases to TS 3.3.1.1, even though 
the two types of SDV Water Level--High Functions are an input to the 
RPS logic, no credit is taken for a scram initiated from these 
functions for any of the design basis accidents or transients 
evaluated in the CPS Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). An 
inoperable SDV water level instrument is not considered as an 
initiator of any analyzed event. The proposed TS change does not 
impact the usefulness of the SRs in evaluating the operability of 
required systems and components, or the way in which the 
surveillances are performed. In addition, the frequency of 
surveillance testing is not considered an initiator of any analyzed 
accident, nor does a revision to the frequency introduce any 
accident initiators. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve 
a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The consequences of a previously analyzed event are dependent on 
the initial conditions assumed in the analysis, the availability and 
successful functioning of equipment assumed to operate in response 
to the analyzed event, and the setpoints at which these actions are 
initiated. The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are 
not significantly increased by the proposed change. The proposed 
change does not affect the performance of any equipment credited to 
mitigate the radiological consequences of an accident. The risk 
assessment of the proposed changes has concluded that there is an 
insignificant increase in the core damage frequency as well as the 
total population dose rate. Historical review of surveillance test 
results and associated maintenance records did not find evidence of 
failures that would invalidate the above conclusions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not alter the ability to 
detect and mitigate events and, as such, does not involve a 
significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any [accident] previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS change does not introduce any failure mechanisms 
of a different type than those previously evaluated, since there are 
no physical changes being made to the facility. No new or different 
equipment is being installed. No installed equipment is being 
operated in a different manner. There is no change being made to the 
parameters within which CPS is operated. There are no setpoints at 
which protective or mitigative actions are initiated that are 
affected by this proposed action. The change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis. This proposed action will 
not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor 
will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No 
alteration in the procedures, which ensure the unit remains within 
analyzed limits, is proposed, and no change is being made to 
procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event. As a 
result, no new failure modes are being introduced. The way 
surveillance tests are performed remains unchanged. A historical 
review of surveillance test results and associated maintenance 
records indicated there was no evidence of any failures that would 
invalidate the above conclusions.
    Therefore, the proposed 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?
    Response: No.
    Margins of safety are established in the design of components, 
the configuration of components to meet certain performance 
parameters, and in the establishment of setpoints to initiate alarms 
or actions. The proposed TS change involves a change in the 
surveillance frequency for the SDV water level float switch channel 
functional test. There is no change in the design of the affected 
systems, no alteration of the setpoints at which alarms or actions 
are initiated, and no change in plant configuration from original 
design. The proposed change does not significantly impact the 
condition or performance of structures, systems, and components 
relied upon for accident mitigation. The proposed change does not 
result in any hardware changes or in any changes to the analytical 
limits assumed in accident analyses. Existing operating margin 
between plant conditions and actual plant setpoints is not 
significantly reduced due to these changes. The proposed change does 
not significantly impact any safety analysis assumptions or results.
    AmerGen has conducted a risk assessment to determine the impact 
of a change to the SDV water level instrument surveillance frequency 
from the current once every 92 days to once every 24 months for the 
risk measures of Core Damage Frequency (CDF) and Large Early Release 
Frequency (LERF). This assessment indicated that the proposed CPS 
surveillance frequency extension has a very small change in risk to 
the public and is an acceptable plant change from a risk 
perspective.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel,

[[Page 29161]]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.

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: July 17, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, technical 
specifications (TS) requirements regarding control room envelope 
habitability in TS 3.7.3, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation (CREV) 
System,'' and TS Section 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals.'' The changes 
would be consistent with NRC-approved industry Technical Specifications 
Task Force (TSTF) standard TS change traveler, TSTF-448, Revision 3. 
The NRC staff issued a ``Notice of Availability of Technical 
Specification Improvement to Modify Requirements Regarding Control Room 
Envelope Habitability Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement 
Process,'' associated with TSTF-448, Revision 3, in the Federal 
Register on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022). The notice included a model 
safety evaluation, a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) 
determination, and a model license amendment request. In its 
application dated July 17, 2007, Carolina Power and Light Company (the 
licensee) affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of NSHC 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 change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change 
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the control room 
envelope (CRE) emergency ventilation system, which is a mitigation 
system designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and 
to filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the 
event of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE 
emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency 
ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident 
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify 
the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to 
assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency 
ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological 
consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that 
the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the 
consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. 
Therefore, the proposed 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 impact the accident analysis. The 
proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of 
the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during 
accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of 
design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No 
new or different accidents result from performing the new 
surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does 
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed 
change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is 
consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, 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

    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety 
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an 
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to 
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 
shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee 
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.

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon 
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: January 4, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
modify technical specification (TS) requirements related to control 
room envelope (CRE) habitability in accordance with the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Revision 3 of Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications (STS) 
Change Traveler TSTF-448, ``Control Room Habitability.''
    The NRC staff published a notice of opportunity for comment in the 
Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61075), on possible license 
amendments adopting TSTF-448, which included a model safety evaluation 
(SE) and 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 January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022), 
which included the resolution of public comments on the model SE and 
model NSHC determination. The licensee affirmed the applicability of 
the following NSHC determination in its application dated January 4, 
2008.
    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 change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change 
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency 
ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to 
minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE 
atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents 
previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency 
ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency

[[Page 29162]]

ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident 
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify 
the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to 
assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency 
ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological 
consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that 
the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the 
consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. 
Therefore, the proposed 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 impact the accident analysis. The 
proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of 
the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during 
accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of 
design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No 
new or different accidents result from performing the new 
surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does 
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed 
change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is 
consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, 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

    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation as determined. The proposed change does not affect safety 
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an 
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to 
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 
shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed 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 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.

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

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

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, 
Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-352 and No. 50-353, 
Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 and 2, Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: February 28, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
clarify the wording of the Radioactive Effluent Controls Program (RECP) 
administrative technical specifications to reflect the intent of 
Generic Letter 89-01, ``Implementation of Programmatic Controls for 
Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications [TS] in the 
Administrative Controls Section of the Technical Specifications and the 
Relocation of Procedural Details of RETS to the Offsite Dose 
Calculation Manual or to the Process Control Program,'' regarding the 
determination requirements for cumulative and projected dose 
contributions. The proposed change will address ambiguity in the 
current TS where the program element could be interpreted to require 
determining projected dose contributions for the calendar quarter and 
current calendar year every 31 days.
    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 change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the applicable TS Section to conform 
to TSTF-308-A, Revision 1[, ``Determination of Cumulative and 
Projected Dose Contributions in RECP.'']
    The proposed change is administrative and simply provides 
enhanced clarity of current requirements. Therefore, this change 
does not affect any accident initiators, does not affect the ability 
to successfully respond to previously evaluated accidents, and does 
not affect radiological assumptions used in the evaluations. This 
change will not alter the operation of process variables, 
structures, systems, or components as described in the affected 
stations' Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). As such, the 
probability of occurrence for a previously evaluated accident is not 
increased.
    The consequences of a previously analyzed event are dependent on 
the initial conditions assumed in the analysis, the availability and 
successful functioning of equipment assumed to operate in response 
to the analyzed event, and the setpoints at which these actions are 
initiated. The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are 
not increased by the proposed change. The proposed change does not 
affect the performance of any equipment credited to mitigate the 
radiological 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 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 (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or changes in methods governing normal plant operation. 
No system or component setpoints will be changed, and the proposed 
change will not impose any new or eliminate any old requirements. 
There are no new accident initiators or equipment failure modes 
resulting from the proposed changes. The proposed changes are 
administrative in nature and support the implementation of common 
programs.
    Thus, this proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the applicable TS Section for the 
affected EGC and AmerGen stations to provide clarity concerning the 
determination requirements

[[Page 29163]]

for cumulative and projected dose contributions.
    The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not 
modify the safety limits or setpoints at which protective actions 
are initiated, and does not change the requirements governing 
operation or availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to 
preserve the margin of safety. In addition, there are no changes 
proposed to equipment operability requirements, setpoints, or 
limiting parameters specified in the stations' Technical 
Specifications.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: July 12, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Crystal River Unit 3 Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) 
requirements related to control room envelope habitability in ITS 
Section 3.7.12, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS),'' 
and ITS Section 5.6.2.21, ``Control Complex Habitability Envelope 
Integrity Program.'' The changes would be consistent with the NRC-
approved industry Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) standard 
TS change traveler, TSTF-448, Revision 3. The NRC staff issued a 
``Notice of Availability of Technical Specification Improvement to 
Modify Requirements Regarding Control Room Envelope Habitability Using 
the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process,'' associated with TSTF-
448, Revision 3, in the Federal Register on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 
2022). The notice included a model safety evaluation, a model no 
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, and a model 
license amendment request. In its application dated July 12, 2007, 
Florida Power Corporation (the licensee) affirmed the applicability of 
the model NSHC determination.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of NSHC 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 change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change 
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the control room 
envelope (CRE) emergency ventilation system, which is a mitigation 
system designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and 
to filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the 
event of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE 
emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency 
ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident 
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify 
the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to 
assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency 
ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological 
consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that 
the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the 
consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. 
Therefore, the proposed 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 impact the accident analysis. The 
proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of 
the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during 
accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of 
design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No 
new or different accidents result from performing the new 
surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does 
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed 
change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is 
consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, 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

    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety 
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an 
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to 
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 
shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee 
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.

Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: January 17, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Crystal River Unit 3 (CR3) Improved Technical Specification 
SR [surveillance requirement] 3.7.5.2, ``Emergency Feedwater System,'' 
and would align the text for the surveillance test frequency with the 
text in the NRC technical report, NUREG-1430, Volume 1, Revision 3, 
``Standard Technical Specifications Babcock and Wilcox Plants-
Specifications.''
    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 not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Changing the test frequency of SR 3.7.5.2 from ``45 days on a 
STAGGERED TEST BASIS'' to ``In accordance with the Inservice Testing 
Program'' will not affect any CR3 structure, system or component 
(SSC). As such, there will be no effect on plant operation, to any 
design function or analysis that verifies the capability of a SSC to 
perform a design function, or to any of the

[[Page 29164]]

previously evaluated accidents in the CR3 Final Safety Analysis 
Report (FSAR). The proposed amendment will not change any operating 
procedure or administrative control.
    Since the proposed amendment does not involve a change to any 
SSC, their operation or design, and since the proposed amendment 
will not change any of the previously evaluated accident in the CR3 
FSAR, the probability and consequences of any accident or operating 
scenario will be unchanged by its implementation.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change will not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., 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 alter any assumptions made 
in the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does not involve a significant reduction in a margin on 
safety.
    The proposed change will not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or Limiting Conditions for 
Operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria 
are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result 
in plant operation in a configuration outside of the accepted design 
basis. As such, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: 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.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 15, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
change and realign several containment isolation subject matter 
Technical Specifications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
Regulation (NUREG)--1431, Revision 3, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications Westinghouse Plants.''
    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 amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    TVA's proposed change that involves administrative changes, 
including relocation of actions or SRs [surveillance requirements] 
to another LCO [limiting condition of operation] or to the TS 
administrative controls section; revision of text to conform with 
NUREG-1431 and add clarity; minor revision to definitions and other 
LCOs for fidelity; and deletion of Type A leakage test performance 
deferral information, do not result in technical changes to 
requirements currently present in the TS. These changes are 
administrative in nature and do not impact initiators of analyzed 
events.
    They also do not impact the assumed mitigation of accidents or 
transients events. Therefore, these changes do not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    TVA's proposed change eliminates an hourly time limit for 
operation of the containment purge supply and exhaust isolation 
valves. This change also eliminates associated actions and SRs. The 
containment purge and ventilation system is qualified and designed 
to isolate in the event of a design basis accident (DBA). The 
probability of occurrence of an accident is not increased by 
deletion of the time limit nor will it affect the system's 
capability for purge valve closure or containment isolation. This 
change does not result in a modification of the reactor building 
purge ventilation (RBPV) system. Consequently, the 10 CFR 100 limits 
for site boundary dose will not be exceeded in the event of an 
accident during containment purge operation. Therefore, the proposed 
amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    TVA proposes to implement a new required action for systems that 
meet the criteria of general design requirement (GDC) 57 for closed 
system. The change would provide relaxation of the completion time 
for isolation of a penetration flow path for the identified systems. 
This change does not result in any plant modification and therefore 
the systems will continue to mitigate the consequences of a DBA. The 
proposed completion time is reasonable and is consistent with 
standard industry guidelines to ensure the accident mitigation 
equipment will be restored in a timely manner. The allow[ed] 
completion time for isolation is not a precursor to any DBE [Design 
Basis Event]; thus, no increase in the probability of accident 
previously evaluated is considered. Therefore, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    TVA's proposed change reduces the amount of technical details of 
an SR and relocates it to a licensee controlled document under the 
control of 10 CFR 50.59. The reduction in information is consistent 
with NUREG-1431. This change does not result in any hardware or 
operating procedure changes. Requirements to perform surveillances 
of the systems detailed in the information are not eliminated. The 
details being removed from the TSs are not assumed to be an 
initiator of any analyzed event and therefore would not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident. This 
information also does not impact the assumed mitigation of accidents 
or transient events. Therefore, these changes do not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    TVA's proposed change adds a more restrictive requirement to 
conform to NUREG-1431 in support of eliminating the hourly time 
limit for the operation of the containment purge isolation valves. 
This change will require a verification that open travel restrictors 
are in the containment purge valves during modes of applicability. 
The change will also require conditional leakage testing of a 
containment purge valve used to isolate a penetration.
    This change does not result in a modification of the RBPV system 
as the restrictors were installed during initial plant licensing. 
Leakage testing is not a new requirement for these valves. These 
changes provide a more stringent requirement that previously existed 
in the TSs. These more stringent requirements do not result in 
operation that will increase the probability of initiating an 
analyzed event. This change assists in the operability of the 
containment purge supply and exhaust isolation valves.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    TVA's proposed changes that involve administrative change, 
including relocation of actions or SRs to another LCO or to the TS 
administrative controls section; revision of text to conform with 
NUREG-1431 and add clarity; minor revision to definitions and other 
LCOs for fidelity; and deletion of Type A leakage test performance 
deferral information, do not result in technical changes to 
requirements currently present in the TS. These changes do not 
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type 
of equipment will be installed) or changes in the methods governing 
normal plant operations. These changes will not impose any new or 
different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. 
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    TVA's proposed change eliminates an hourly time limit for 
operation of the containment purge supply and exhaust

[[Page 29165]]

isolation valves. This change also eliminates associated actions and 
SRs. This change does not involve a change to plant systems, 
components, or operating practices that could result in a change in 
accident generation potential. The containment purge supply and 
exhaust valves are utilized for the isolation of flow paths to the 
environs and are not a feature that could generate a postulated 
accident. Elimination of the operational time restriction of the 
containment purge supply and exhaust isolation valves will not 
impact the potential for accidents. Therefore, this proposed change 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated.
    TVA proposes to implement a new required action for systems that 
meet the closed system design. The change would provide relaxation 
of the completion time for isolation of a penetration flow path for 
the identified systems. This change does not involve a physical 
alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will 
be installed) or require any unusual operator actions. The proposed 
change will not alter the way any structure, system, or component 
functions, and will not alter the manner the plant is operated. The 
response of the plant and the operators following an accident will 
not be different. The change does not introduce any new failure 
modes.
    Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    TVA's proposed change reduces the amount of technical details of 
an SR and relocates it to a licensee controlled document under the 
control of 10 CFR 50.59.
    The reduction in information is consistent with NUREG-1431 and 
adequate control of the information will be maintained. This change 
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in testing 
requirements of these systems. This change will not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. 
Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    TVA's proposed change adds a more restrictive requirement to 
conform to NUREG-1431 in support of eliminating the hourly time 
limit for the operation of the containment purge isolation valves. 
This change will require a verification that open travel restrictors 
are in the containment purge valves during modes of applicability. 
The change will also require conditional leakage testing of a 
containment purge valve used to isolate a penetration. This change 
does not result in a modification of the RBPV system as the 
restrictors were installed during initial plant licensing. Leakage 
testing is not a new requirement for these valves. Verification of 
restrictors does not modify normal plant operations, but does impose 
different administrative requirements. Action required leakage rate 
testing of an isolated containment purge valve does create new 
requirements. However, these changes will maintain the assumptions 
in the safety analyses and licensing basis. Therefore, this proposed 
change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    TVA's proposed changes that involve administrative change, 
including relocation of actions or SRs to another LCO or to the TS 
administrative controls section; revision of text to conform with 
NUREG-1431 and add clarity; minor revision to definitions and other 
LCO for fidelity; and deletion of Type A leakage test performance 
deferral information, do not result in technical changes to 
requirements currently present in the TS. These changes will not 
reduce a margin of safety because it has no impact on any safety 
analysis assumptions. Also, since these changes are administrative 
in nature, no question of safety is involved. Therefore, these 
changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    TVA's proposed change eliminates an hourly time limit for 
operation of the containment purge supply and exhaust isolation 
valves. This change also eliminates associated actions and SRs. The 
proposed change does not alter plant systems or their setpoints that 
are used to maintain the margin of safety. Operability will continue 
to be maintained by testing and verification requirements on the 
containment purge valves. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
    TVA proposes to implement a new required action for systems that 
meet the closed system design. The change would provide relaxation 
of the completion time for isolation of a penetration flow path for 
the identified systems. This change does not result in any plant 
modification, testing requirements to ensure operability, or a 
change in safety limits or safety system settings. The proposed 
completion time is reasonable and is consistent with standard 
industry guidelines to ensure the accident mitigation equipment will 
be restored in a timely manner. Therefore, the proposed change does 
not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
    TVA's proposed change reduces the amount of technical details of 
an SR and relocates it to a licensee controlled document under the 
control of 10 CFR 50.59. This change does not reduce the margin of 
safety since the location of the details has no impact on any safety 
assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    TVA's proposed change adds a more restrictive requirement to 
conform to NUREG-1431 in support of eliminating the hourly time 
limit for the operation of the containment purge isolation valves. 
This change will require a verification that open travel restrictors 
are in the containment purge valves during modes of applicability. 
The change will also require conditional leakage testing of a 
containment purge valve used to isolate a penetration. Adding more 
stringent requirements, by definition, provides additional 
restrictions to enhance plant safety. As such, no question of safety 
is involved. 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, 
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: April 2, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change revises 
Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.0, ``Design Features,'' to 
delete certain design details and descriptions included in TS 5.0 that 
are already contained in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR), or are redundant to existing TS requirements, and are not 
required to be included in the TSs pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Section 50.36(c)(4). The 
proposed change also revises the format of, and incorporates design 
descriptions into, TS 5.0 consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) policy and NUREG-1431, Standard Technical Specifications, 
Westinghouse Plants, Revision 3.0, to the extent practical. An 
editorial change is also proposed to address a minor TS discrepancy 
introduced by a previous license amendment.
    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 change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to Section 5.0, ``Design Features,'' deletes 
certain details from the TS that are not required to be maintained 
in the TS by 10 CFR 50.36(c)(4), adds new TS limits that meet the 10 
CFR 50.36(c)(4) inclusion criteria and revises the TS for 
consistency with NUREG-1431, Revision 3.0. The remaining change 
addresses a minor editorial discrepancy.
    The proposed change does not add or modify any plant system, 
structures or component and has no impact on plant equipment 
operation. Thus, the proposed change is administrative in nature and 
does

[[Page 29166]]

not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of 
accident or transient events. Therefore, this change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Since the proposed change is administrative in nature, it does 
not involve a phy