Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 31717-31727 [E8-11963]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31717-31727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11963]


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

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 May 8, 2008, to May 21, 2008. The last 
biweekly notice was published on May 20, 2008 (73 FR 13021).

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; (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

[[Page 31718]]

2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 
which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from 
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing 
or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days the 
Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by 
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or 
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be 
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC 
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process 
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the Internet 
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. 
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they 
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor 
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
hearingdocket@nrc.gov, or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms 
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

[[Page 31719]]

of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to 
the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner 
are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. 
Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of 
deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery 
service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition 
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be 
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later 
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or 
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal 
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, 
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted 
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the 
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, 
participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in 
their submission.
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 2, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the Technical Specification (TS) definitions, TS 3.5.B, 
``Secondary Containment,'' and TS 3.17, ``Control Room Heating, 
Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning System,'' to eliminate the 
requirement for secondary containment to be operable during handling of 
irradiated fuel.
    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 change is [based on a reanalysis of] a postulated 
fuel handling accident inside the Reactor Building occurring during 
fuel loading and refueling activities. The proposed change does not 
involve a change to structures, components, or systems that would 
affect the probability of an accident previously evaluated in the 
Oyster Creek Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Oyster 
Creek Alternative Source Term (AST) methodology has been previously 
reviewed and approved by the NRC. [The] AST [methodology] is used to 
evaluate the dose consequences of the postulated fuel handling 
accident. The postulated fuel handling accident has been analyzed 
without credit for Secondary Containment integrity and Standby Gas 
Treatment system operation. The resultant radiological consequences 
are within the acceptance criteria set forth in [Title 10 of The 
Code of Federal Regulations] 10 CFR [Section] 50.67 and [Regulatory 
Guide] RG 1.183. Therefore, the proposed changes do not 
significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    This amendment does not alter methodology or equipment used 
directly in fuel handling operations. The Secondary Containment 
structure and the Standby Gas Treatment system, and any component 
thereof, are not accident initiators. Actual fuel handling 
operations are not affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the 
probability of a fuel handling accident is not affected with the 
proposed amendment. No other accident initiator is affected by the 
proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment will not create the possibility for a new 
or different type of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated. Equipment important to safety will continue to operate as 
designed. Component integrity is not challenged. The changes do not 
result in any event previously deemed incredible being made 
credible. The changes do not result in more adverse conditions or 
result in any increase in the challenges to safety systems. The 
systems affected by the changes are used to mitigate the 
consequences of an accident that has already occurred. The proposed 
Technical Specification changes do not [reduce] the mitigative 
function of these systems.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
    Safety margins and analytical [assumptions] have been evaluated 
and have been found acceptable. The analyzed event has been 
carefully selected and margin has been retained to ensure that the 
analysis adequately bounds the postulated event scenario. The dose 
consequences due to the postulated event comply with the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.67 and the guidance of RG 1.183.
    The proposed amendment is associated with the implementation of 
a new licensing basis for the Oyster Creek Fuel Handling Accident. 
The change from the original source term to a new source term taken 
from RG 1.183 has been previously approved by the NRC for Oyster 
Creek. The results of the accident analysis, revised in support of 
the proposed license amendment, are subject to revised acceptance 
criteria. The analysis has been performed using conservative 
methodologies, as specified in RG 1.183. Safety margins have been 
evaluated and analytical conservatism has been utilized to ensure 
that the analysis adequately bounds the postulated limiting event 
scenario. The dose consequences of this design basis accident remain 
within the acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67, ``Accident 
source term'', and RG 1.183. The proposed changes continue to ensure 
that the doses at the exclusion area boundary (EAB) and low 
population zone (LPZ), as well as the Control Room, are within 
corresponding regulatory limits.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in any margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, and with the changes noted above, 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: Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General 
Counsel,

[[Page 31720]]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 4, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
remove the operability and surveillance requirements for the heaters 
contained in the shield building ventilation (SBV) system and in the 
auxiliary building special ventilation (ABSV) system, and reduce the 
operating time required to demonstrate SBV system operability.
    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 SBV or ABSV system heaters are not accident initiators. 
Their original purpose was to improve the effectiveness of the 
system's charcoal adsorbers by decreasing the air stream humidity 
before entering the adsorber section of the filter unit. However, 
the currently required testing methodology for the ABSV and SBV 
verifies charcoal adsorber iodine removal efficiency is greater than 
assumed in the KPS radiological accident analysis of record (AOR), 
with a safety factor of 2, without crediting the heaters.
    The proposed amendment would not change any of the previously 
evaluated accidents in the updated safety analysis report (USAR). 
The current radiological accident analysis of record (AOR) bounds 
operation of the plant without consideration of the shield building 
ventilation (SBV) or auxiliary building special ventilation (ABSV) 
heaters. In addition, the current testing requirements are adequate 
to validate that the charcoal adsorber remains capable of performing 
at its assumed efficiency without crediting humidity control. The 
proposed change does not increase the likelihood of a malfunction of 
an SSC. The result of this change will be the eventual removal of 
un-needed equipment. Since the equipment is not needed and the 
removal will make the system less complex, the probability of a 
malfunction of the SBV system or the ABSV system is not 
significantly increased.
    In addition, removal of the post-accident electrical load 
associated with the heaters reduces electrical load on the emergency 
diesel generators, which provides additional margin regarding the 
capability of emergency power.
    In addition, elimination of the heaters from the ABSV reduces 
post-accident heat load in the SV area, which in turn reduces the 
potential for heat related equipment failures in the area.
    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
    The SBV and ABSV systems are accident response systems and as 
such do not cause or initiate accidents. The proposed change does 
not functionally change the design or operation of the SBV system or 
that of the ABSV system. Deletion of heater requirements from the TS 
is based on the heaters not being needed for mitigation of any 
accident condition and does not significantly affect the operation 
of these systems. These systems will continue to meet the functional 
requirements in the current radiological accident analysis of record 
for Kewaunee and maintain calculated dose consequences within 
acceptable limits. Because the SBV and ABSV systems are not accident 
initiators, this proposed change will not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No
    The removal of the ABSV and SBCV heaters will result in a 
reduction in the efficiency of the charcoal adsorber due to the 
removal of the humidity reduction affect. However, these changes are 
bounded within the assumptions of the AOR. Specifically, the 
currently required testing methodology for the ABSV and SBV verifies 
charcoal adsorber iodine removal efficiency is greater than assumed 
in the KPS radiological accident analysis of record (AOR), with a 
safety factor of 2, without crediting the heaters. The removal of 
these heaters does not alter the safety margins contained in the 
radiological accident analysis. The KPS current radiological 
accident analysis was performed in accordance with NRC Regulatory 
Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating 
Design Basis Accident at Nuclear Power Reactors.'' Surveillance 
requirement acceptance criteria for the SBV and the ABSV filters are 
based on 95% RH and 30C, consistent with Generic Letter 99-02 
guidance for systems without humidity control. Removal of the SBV 
and ABSV heaters does not alter the safety margins contained in the 
current radiological accident analyses or the surveillance testing 
criteria. The charcoal adsorber sample laboratory testing protocol 
accurately demonstrates the required performance of the adsorbers in 
the SBV and ABSV systems following a design basis accident. These 
testing standards ensure adequate margin exists and that the 
charcoal will perform its design basis function. The offsite and 
control room dose analyses are not affected by this change, and 
offsite and control room doses will remain within the limits of 10 
CFR 50.67 and Regulatory Guide 1.183.
    The current surveillance test acceptance criteria for the ABSV 
and SBV systems currently provide a safety factor of 2 when compared 
to the assumptions for charcoal filter performance in the current 
radiological accident analysis. This safety factor will not be 
adversely affected by the proposed change.
    Furthermore, removal of the TS requirement will allow the 
heaters to be permanently de-energized. This will result in an 
increase in the margin between the post-accident calculated load and 
the load limitations on both emergency diesel generators and between 
the ambient temperature limitations of certain safety related 
equipment and the calculated maximum post-accident ambient 
temperature for this equipment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lois James.

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

Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 
2, Will County, Illinois
    Date of amendment request: February 21, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the current licensing basis associated with the application of 
the alternative source term (AST) methodology, previously approved by 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. Specifically, the 
proposed amendment would remove credit in the AST analyses for the 
control room ventilation system recirculation filters, which function 
as prefilters.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

[[Page 31721]]

    Response: No.
    The AST methodology, as previously reviewed and approved for use 
at Braidwood and Byron Stations by the NRC, follows the guidance 
provided in RG 1.183 and satisfies the dose limits in 10 CFR 50.67. 
However, it was recently identified that a misapplication of a 
Control Room Ventilation (VC) System prefilter efficiency was 
incorporated into the previously approved AST analyses. As a result, 
it was necessary to revise the Braidwood Station and Byron Station 
AST calculations to remove credit for the prefilter. To offset the 
increase in dose associated with the removal of the prefilter 
credit, the assumed control room unfiltered air inleakage value was 
also reduced from 1000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) to 500 cfm. The 
implementation of the revised AST assumptions has been evaluated in 
revisions to the analyses of the following DBAs at the Braidwood 
Station and Byron Station.
     Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA).
     Locked Rotor Accident (LRA).
     Control Rod Ejection Accident (CREA).
    The proposed changes to the assumptions used in the AST analyses 
do not affect any of the parameters or conditions that could 
contribute to the initiation of any accidents. The proposed changes 
to the AST analyses do not require any physical changes to the 
plant. Application of the proposed changes to the AST analyses does 
not result in changes to the functions and operation of various 
filtration systems as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR). The proposed change to the AST assumptions will not 
alter the capability of any structure, system, or component (SSC) to 
perform its design function. Therefore, the proposed changes being 
evaluated do not alter existing accident initiators. Since DBA 
initiators are not being altered by the proposed change to the AST 
methodology assumptions, the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated is not affected.
    The revised AST analyses did result in an increase in the 
calculated control room dose; however, there was no change in the 
offsite dose. The results of the revised AST analyses have 
demonstrated that the 10 CFR 50.67 limits are still satisfied. Since 
the resulting control room dose continues to comply with the 
regulatory limits associated with the AST methodology, the changes 
do not constitute a significant change. Therefore, it is concluded 
that the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in 
the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Based on the above discussion, the proposed changes do not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is to the assumptions used in the AST 
analyses and will not change the design function or operation of any 
SSCs. Revision of the AST analyses assumptions will not result in a 
credible new failure mechanism, malfunction, or accident initiator 
not considered in the design and licensing bases. The proposed 
changes do not require any physical changes to any SSCs involved in 
the mitigation of any accidents. In addition, no precursors of a new 
or different kind of accident are created. New equipment or 
personnel failure modes that might initiate a new type of accident 
are not created as a result of the proposed changes.
    Based on the above discussion, the proposed changes do 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.
    The proposed change involves revising the Braidwood and Byron 
Stations' AST calculations to remove credit for the VC System 
prefilters and reduce the assumed control room air inleakage value. 
The safety margins and analytical conservatisms associated with the 
revised AST assumptions were evaluated and found acceptable. The 
results of the revised DBA analyses, performed in support of the 
proposed changes, are subject to specific acceptance criteria as 
specified in RG 1.183 and 10 CFR 50.67.
    The AST calculations for the LOCA, LRA, and CREA were revised 
and updated control room doses determined based on the revised 
assumptions. The revised calculations indicate an increase in 
control room dose when compared to the doses documented in the 
current licensing basis for Braidwood and Byron Stations; however, 
the revised dose consequences for the applicable DBAs remain within 
the acceptance criteria presented in RG 1.183. The revised control 
room doses were compared to the regulatory limits specified in 10 
CFR 50.67 and have been demonstrated to remain within the specified 
limits. Since the resulting control room doses continue to meet the 
regulatory limits the proposed changes do not constitute a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    While the proposed changes do result in an increased control 
room dose, there is no change in the offsite dose. This proposed 
change in the analysis assumptions affects only the control room 
dose and does not affect the calculated offsite doses. Therefore, 
the proposed changes continue to ensure that the doses at the 
exclusion area boundary (EAB) and low population zone boundary (LPZ) 
are within the specified regulatory limits and do not result in a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, based on the above discussion, 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. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.

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: April 21, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment removes 
references to and limits imposed by Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
Generic Letter (GL) 82-12, ``Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours,'' 
from the subject plants' technical specifications (TS). The guidelines 
have been superseded by the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, Part 26 (10 CFR 26), Subpart I, ``Managing 
Fatigue.''
    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

[[Page 31722]]

consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The removal of references to GL 82-12 will not remove the 
requirement to control work hours and manage fatigue. Removal of TS 
references to GL 82-12 will be performed concurrently with the 
implementation of the more conservative 10 CFR 26, Subpart I, 
requirements. The proposed changes do not impact the physical 
configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed changes do 
not impact the initiators or assumptions of analyzed events, nor do 
they impact the mitigation of accidents or transient events.
    Because these new requirements are more conservative with 
respect to work hour controls and fatigue management, this will not 
significantly increase the probability or consequence 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 changes remove references to GL 82-12 from TS to 
support the addition of Subpart I to 10 CFR 26. These regulations 
are more restrictive than the current guidance and would add 
conservatism to work hour controls and fatigue management. Work 
hours will continue to be controlled in accordance with NRC 
requirements. The new rule continues to allow for deviations from 
controls to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to safety or 
necessary to maintain the security of the facility. This ensures 
that the new rule will not restrict work hours at the expense of the 
health and safety of the public as well as plant personnel.
    The proposed changes do not alter plant configuration, require 
that new plant equipment be installed, alter assumptions made about 
accidents previously evaluated, add any initiators, or impact the 
function of plant SSCs or the manner in which SSCs are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
    Because the proposed changes do not remove the station's 
requirement to control work hours and increases the conservatism of 
work hour controls by changing administrative scheduling 
requirements, the 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.
    An input to maintaining the margin of safety is the control of 
work hours as a tool in managing fatigue. The affected stations will 
continue their fitness-for-duty and behavioral observation programs, 
both of which will be strengthened by compliance with the new rule. 
The proposed changes add conservatism to fatigue management and 
contribute to the margin of safety.
    The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to 
plant SSCs or the manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed changes do not involve 
a change to any safety limits, limiting safety system settings, 
limiting conditions of operation, or design parameters for any SSC. 
The proposed changes do not impact any safety analysis assumptions 
and does not involve a change in initial conditions, system response 
times, or other parameters affecting an accident analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: February 5, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TS) to eliminate the second condition of 
Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) 2.5(1)A. The current LCO 
2.5(1)A. states, ``With one steam supply to the turbine driven AFW 
[auxiliary feedwater] pump inoperable, restore the steam supply to 
OPERABLE status within 7 days and within 8 days from discovery of the 
failure to meet the LCO.'' The amendment would eliminate the second 
condition that states, ``and within 8 days from discovery of failure to 
meet the LCO.'' The proposed change is consistent with the objective of 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-439, Revision 
2, ``Eliminate Second Completion Times Limiting Time From Discovery of 
Failure to Meet an LCO.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change eliminates the second completion time from 
the technical specifications pertaining to the auxiliary feedwater 
(AFW) system. Completion times are not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences of an 
accident during the revised completion time are no different than 
the consequences of the same accident during the existing completion 
time. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed change does 
not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 
components from performing their intended function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, 
containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in 
evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types 
or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor 
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public 
radiation exposures. The proposed change is consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. Therefore, 
the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different 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 a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The proposed change does not alter any assumptions made 
in the safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change deleting the second completion time from the 
technical specification pertaining to the AFW system does 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 changes will not result in plant operation in a 
configuration outside of the design basis. 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: James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.

[[Page 31723]]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: April 29, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specifications Figure 3.1.7-1, showing the sodium 
pentaborate solution volume versus concentration requirements by re-
labeling the horizontal axis.
    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
    This proposed Technical Specifications change will not result in 
any changes to the operation, maintenance, or surveillance of any 
plant systems, structures, or components designed for the prevention 
or mitigation of previously evaluated events. This amendment 
proposes editorial changes to the Figure 3.1.7-1, ``sodium 
sentaborate Solution Volume Versus Concentration Requirements.'' The 
plot will be enlarged such that all the tic marks on the horizontal 
axis can be labeled. The plotted data remains the same. Therefore 
the response to an ATWS [Anticipated Transient Without Scram] event 
or to any other event requiring use of the SLC [Standby Liquid 
Control] system is unaffected.
    For the above reasons, the proposed amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of a 
previously evaluated accident.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No
    This proposed amendment does not make any changes to the 
operation testing, maintenance, or surveillance of any safety 
related, or otherwise important to safety, system. These systems 
will all continue to be operated, surveilled and maintained within 
their design bases. The proposed changes to the SLC system figure is 
editorial and will improve the readability of the plot.
    For the reasons noted above, this proposed amendment will not 
introduce the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No
    This proposed amendment makes an editorial revision to the 
Technical Specifications. Specifically, the plot of Sodium 
Pentaborate solution volume versus concentration is being enlarged 
to enable the proper labeling of all the tic marks on the horizontal 
axis, which indicates the volume. The plotted data is not changing. 
Therefore, the Technical Specifications assumptions and margins to 
safety remain unaffected.

    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: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw, 
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259 , Browns Ferry Nuclear 
Plant (BFN), Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: March 26, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) material surveillance program 
required by Appendix H to 10 CFR Part 50. This program incorporates the 
Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project (BWRVIP) Integrated 
Surveillance Program (ISP) into the BFN Unit 1 licensing basis. The 
program developed by the BWRVIP has been previously evaluated by the 
NRC staff and found to be acceptable, and similar amendments have been 
approved for BFN Units 2 and 3.
    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 proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change implements an integrated surveillance 
program that has been evaluated by the NRC staff as meeting the 
requirements of paragraph III.C of Appendix H to 10 CFR 50. 
Consequently, the change does not significantly increase the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated. The change 
provides the same assurance of RPV integrity. The change will not 
cause the reactor pressure vessel or interfacing systems to be 
operated outside their design or testing limits. Also, the change 
will not alter any assumptions previously made in evaluating the 
radiological consequences of accidents. Therefore, the proposed 
change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change revises the BFN Unit 1 licensing basis to 
reflect participation in the BWRVIP ISP. The proposed change does 
not involve a modification of the design of plant structures, 
systems, or components. The change will not impact the manner in 
which the plant is operated as plant operating and testing 
procedures will not be affected by the change. The change will not 
degrade the reliability of structures, systems, or components 
important to safety as equipment protection features will not be 
deleted or modified, equipment redundancy or independence will not 
be reduced, supporting system performance will not be increased, and 
increased or more severe testing of equipment will not be imposed. 
No new accident types or failure modes will be introduced as a 
result of this proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from that previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change has been evaluated as providing an 
acceptable alternative to the plant-specific RPV material 
surveillance program and meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50 
Appendix H for RPV material surveillance. Appendix G to 10 CFR 50 
describes the conditions that require pressure temperature (P/T) 
limits and provides the general bases for these limits. Until the 
results from the Integrated Surveillance Program become available, 
RG 1.99, Revision 2 will be used to predict the amount of neutron 
irradiation damage. The use of operating limits based on these 
criteria, as defined by applicable regulations, codes, and 
standards, provide reasonable assurance that nonductile or rapidly 
propagating failure will not occur. The P/T limits are not derived 
from Design Basis Accident (DBA) analyses. They are prescribed 
during normal operation to avoid encountering pressure, temperature, 
and temperature rate of change conditions that might cause 
undetected flaws to propagate and cause nonductile failure of the 
reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB). Since the P/T limits are 
not derived from any DBA, there are no acceptance limits related to 
the P/T limits. Rather, the P/T limits are acceptance limits 
themselves since they preclude operation in an unanalyzed condition.
    The proposed change will not affect any safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings, or limiting conditions of operation. The 
proposed change does not represent a change in initial conditions, 
or in a system response time, or in any other parameter affecting 
the course of an accident analysis supporting the Bases of any 
Technical Specification. Further, the proposed change does not 
involve a revision to P/T limits but rather a revision to the 
surveillance capsule withdrawal schedule such that there are 
presently no plans to remove any surveillance capsules from BFN Unit 
1. The

[[Page 31724]]

current P/T limits were established based on adjusted reference 
temperatures for RPV beltline materials calculated in accordance 
with RG 1.99, Revision 2. P/T limits will continue to be revised, as 
necessary, for changes in adjusted reference temperature due to 
changes influence when two or more credible surveillance data sets 
become available. When two or more credible surveillance data sets 
become available, P/T limits will be revised as prescribed by RG 
1.99, Revision 2 or other NRC approved guidance. 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

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.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-281, Surry Power 
Station, Unit No. 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: April 14, 2008, as supplemented on May 
6, 2008.
    Brief Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
allowed a one-cycle revision to Surry Power Station, Unit No. 2 
Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, TS 6.4.Q, ``Steam 
Generator (SG) Program,'' and TS 6.6.3, ``Steam Generator Tube 
Inspection Report,'' were revised to incorporate an interim alternate 
repair criterion (IARC) into the provisions for SG tube repair.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: April 
25, 2008 (73 FR 22443).
    Expiration date of individual notice: The comment period would have 
expired May 27, 2008. The Hearing period will expire June 24, 2008. A 
Public Notice was published in the Daily Press on May 12, and May 13, 
2008, based on the supplemental letter dated May 6, 2008. The Daily 
Press notice provided an opportunity to submit comments by May 15, 
2008. No comments have been received.

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.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 14, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specification (TS) requirements related to control room envelope 
habitability in accordance with TS Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-448-
A, ``Control Room Habitability,'' Revision 3.
    Date of issuance: May 12, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 230.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 12, 2008 (73 
FR 8070). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 12, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 12, 2007, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 22 and April 4, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the FCS 
design and licensing basis to increase the shutdown cooling (SDC) 
system entry temperature from 300 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) to 350 
[deg]F (cold leg), and the SDC entry pressure from 250 pounds per 
square inch absolute (psia) to 300 psia (indicated at the pressurizer). 
Additionally, the Updated Safety Analysis Report described design 
methodology, applied to the SDC heat exchangers, is changed.
    Date of issuance: May 9, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to startup from the 2008 refueling outage.
    Amendment No.: 256.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (72 
FR

[[Page 31725]]

65370). The supplemental letters dated March 22 and April 4, 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.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated May 9, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station 
(HCGS), Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of application for amendment: September 18, 2006, as 
supplemented by additional letters dated October 10 and 20, 2006, 
February 14, 16, and 28, March 13, 22, and 30, April 13, 18, and 30, 
May 10, 18, and 24, June 22, July 12, August 3, 17, 27, and 31, 
September 11, October 10 and 23, November 15 and 30, December 31, 2007, 
January 14, 15, 16, 18, 25 and 30, March 18, and May 2, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment increases the HCGS 
authorized maximum power level by approximately 15 percent, from the 
current licensed thermal power of 3339 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3840 
MWt. The amendment revises the HCGS Operating License and Technical 
Specifications necessary to implement the increased power level.
    Date of issuance: May 14, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 174.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the 
TSs and the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 3, 2007 (72 FR 
24627). The supplements dated October 10 and 20, 2006, February 14, 16, 
and 28, March 13, 22, and 30, April 13, 18, and 30, May 10, 18, and 24, 
June 22, July 12, August 3, 17, 27, and 31, September 11, October 10 
and 23, November 15 and 30, December 31, 2007, January 14, 15, 16, 18, 
25 and 30, March 18, and May 2, 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.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 14, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and 
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency 
Circumstances)

    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 for the 
amendment 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.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of 
Consid