Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 37501-37508 [E8-14342]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37501-37508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-14342]


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

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 June 5, 2008, to June 18, 2008. The last 
biweekly notice was published on June 17, 2008 (73 FR 34337).

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 6D44, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's 
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public 
File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave 
to intervene is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing 
and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the 
Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' 
in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 
10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at 
One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's 
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request 
for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 
days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the 
Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety 
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; 
and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an 
appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's

[[Page 37502]]

property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be 
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC 
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process 
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet 
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. 
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they 
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor 
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
hearingdocket@nrc.gov, or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms 
Viewer(TM) to access the Electronic Information Exchange 
(EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms 
Viewer(tm) is free and is available at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information about applying 
for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at 
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
    Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, 
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit 
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions 
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC 
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an 
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a 
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to 
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others 
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the 
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line, 
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or 
locally, (301) 415-4737.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance 
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting 
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such 
filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 
Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited 
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, 
Attention: 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

[[Page 37503]]

personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home 
addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to 
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose 
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 22, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Technical Specification (TS) 1.0, ``Definitions'', Limiting 
Conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirement Applicability 
Section 3.4.9, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and Temperature 
(P/T) Limits'', and Section 5.0, ``Administrative Controls'' to delete 
reference to the pressure and temperature curves, and include reference 
to the Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR). This proposed 
change would adopt the methodology of SIR-05-044-A, ``Pressure-
Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors,'' for 
preparation of the pressure and temperature curves, and incorporate the 
guidance of TSTF-419-A, ``Revise PTLR Definition and References in ISTS 
[Improved Standard Technical Specifications] 5.6.6, RCS PTLR.''
    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 modifies Technical Specifications (TS) 
Section 1.0 (``Definitions''), Limiting Conditions for Operation and 
Surveillance Requirement Applicability Section 3.4.9 (``RCS Pressure 
and Temperature (P/T) Limits''), and 5.0 (``Administrative 
Controls''), to delete reference to the pressure and temperature 
curves and include reference to the Pressure and Temperature Limits 
Report (PTLR). This change adopts the methodology of SIR-05-044-A, 
``Pressure-Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water 
Reactors'', dated April 2007 for preparation of the pressure and 
temperature curves, and incorporates the guidance of TSTF-419-A 
(``Revised PTLR Definition and References in ISTS 5.6.6, RCS 
PTLR''). In an NRC Safety Evaluation Report dated February 6, 2007, 
``the NRC staff has found that SIR-05-044 is acceptable for 
referencing in licensing applications for General Electric-designed 
boiling water reactors to the extent specified and under the 
limitations delineated in the TR [Topical Report] and in the 
enclosed final SE [Safety Evaluation]''. As part of this change, the 
JAF Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR) based on the 
methodology and template provided in SIR-05-044-A is being supplied 
for review. The pressure and temperature curves utilize the 
methodology of SIR-05-044-A.
    The NRC has established requirements in Appendix G to 10 CFR 
[Part] 50 in order to protect the integrity of the reactor coolant 
pressure boundary (RCPB) in nuclear power plants. Additionally, the 
regulation in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H, provides the NRC staff's 
criteria for the design and implementation of RPV material 
surveillance programs for operating lightwater reactors. 
Implementing this NRC approved methodology does not reduce the 
ability to protect the reactor coolant pressure boundary as 
specified in Appendix G, nor will this change increase the 
probability of malfunction of plant equipment, or the failure of 
plant structures, systems, or components. Incorporation of the new 
methodology for calculating P-T curves, and the relocation of the P-
T curves from the TS to the PTLR provides an equivalent level of 
assurance that the RCPB is capable of performing its intended safety 
functions. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not affect the assumed accident 
performance of the RCPB, nor any plant structure, system, or 
component previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve 
the installation of new equipment, and installed equipment is not 
being operated in a new or different manner. The change in 
methodology ensures that the RCPB remains capable of performing its 
safety functions. No set points are being changed which would alter 
the dynamic response of plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure 
modes are introduced which could introduce the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not affect the function of the RCPB or 
its response during plant transients. There are no changes proposed 
which alter the set points at which protective actions are 
initiated, and there is no change to the operability requirements 
for equipment assumed to operate for accident mitigation. This 
change adopts the methodology of SIR-05-044-A, ``Pressure-
Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors'', 
dated April 2007 for preparation of the pressure and temperature 
curves. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    This change adopts the methodology of SIR-05-044-A, ``Pressure-
Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors'', 
dated April 2007 for preparation of the pressure and temperature 
curves, and incorporates the guidance of TSTF-419-A (``Revise PTLR 
Definition and References in ISTS 5.6.6, RCS PTLR''). In an NRC 
Safety Evaluation Report dated February 6, 2007, the NRC staff has 
found that SIR-05-044 is acceptable for referencing in licensing 
applications for General Electric-designed boiling water reactors.''

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.

NRC Branch Chief: Mark G. Kowal.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian 
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Westchester County, New 
York

    Date of amendment request: March 13, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports (UFSARs) for Indian 
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 to reflect a revised 
Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) and Component Cooling Water System 
(CCWS) single passive failure analysis and the recirculation phase 
backup capability.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the

[[Page 37504]]

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 probabilities of accidents previously evaluated are based on 
the probability of initiating events for these accidents.
    The proposed changes to the ECCS and CCWS (Unit 2 only) passive 
failure and recirculation phase backup capability licensing basis do 
not have any impact on the integrity of any plant system, structure 
or component that initiates an analyzed event. The ECCS system and 
the CCWS are accident mitigating systems under these conditions and 
therefore cannot cause accidents. Thus the probability of any 
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
    The consequences of accidents previously evaluated are 
determined by the results of analyses that are based on plant 
initial conditions, the type of accident, plant response, and the 
operation and potential failure of equipment and systems. Because a 
passive failure within 24 hours of the initiating event is not a 
credible failure, the ECCS and the CCWS (Unit 2 only) will continue 
to operate as required for accident mitigation. Therefore, the 
consequences of the accident are not significantly impacted by this 
proposed change.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    New or different kinds of accidents can only be created by new 
or different accident initiators or sequences. The proposed changes 
do not create any new or different accident initiators because these 
changes do not cause failures of equipment or accident sequences 
different from those previously evaluated. The ECCS and CCWS (Unit 2 
only) systems affected by the changes are used to mitigate the 
consequences of an accident that has already occurred. The proposed 
UFSAR changes do not significantly affect the mitigative function of 
these systems. No new failure mechanisms will be introduced by the 
proposed changes. The changes do not result in any event previously 
deemed incredible being made credible. Therefore, plant operation in 
accordance with the proposed changes will not create the possibility 
of a new or different [kind] of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety. The proposed changes do not adversely affect 
plant safety limits, set points, or design parameters.
    The proposed changes assure that the ECCS, and Containment Spray 
recirculation functions can be adequately accomplished. The proposed 
changes do not have any impact on the integrity of any plant system, 
structure or component that initiates an analyzed event. The 
proposed changes do revise the ECCS and CCWS (Unit 2 only) licensing 
basis. The revised licensing bases were appropriately evaluated to 
ensure that there was no significant reduction in the margin of 
safety. The ECCS and CCWS will continue to provide accident 
mitigation capability.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not create a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Mark G. Kowal.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: April 9, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specifications (TSs) 5.5.6, ``Pre-Stressed Concrete 
Containment Tendon Surveillance Program,'' and 5.6.8, ``Tendon 
Surveillance Report,'' for consistency with the requirements of Title 
10 Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) section 50.55a, ``Codes and 
standards,'' paragraph (g)(4) for components classified as American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME 
Code) Class CC. Specifically, the proposed changes would replace or 
delete the reference to the specific ASME Code year for the tendon 
surveillance program with a requirement to use the applicable ASME Code 
and addenda as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4).
    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 revises the TS administrative controls 
program for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) 
for components classified as Code Class CC.
    The revised requirements do not affect the function of the 
containment post-tensioning system components. The post-tensioning 
systems are passive components whose failure modes could not act as 
accident initiators or precursors. The proposed change does 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 
change does not impact the initiators or assumptions of analyzed 
events, nor does it impact the mitigation of accidents or transient 
events.
    The proposed change does not impact any accident initiators or 
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient 
events. It does not involve the addition or removal of any 
equipment, or any design changes to the facility.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the TS administrative controls 
program for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) 
for components classified as Code Class CC.
    The function of the containment post-tensioning system 
components is not altered by this change. The proposed change does 
not involve a modification to the physical configuration of the 
plant (i.e., no new equipment will be installed) or change in the 
methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will 
not impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new 
accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism. 
Additionally, there is no change in the types or increases in the 
amounts of any effluent that may be released off-site and there is 
no increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure.
    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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the TS administrative controls 
program requirements for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.55a(g)(4) for components classified as Code Class CC.
    The function of the containment post-tensioning system 
components are not altered by this change. The change is conforming 
and administrative in nature in that it will allow the TS to be 
updated to refer to the most recently approved edition of the ASME 
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Subsection IWL. The safety function 
of the containment as a fission product barrier will be maintained.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.


[[Page 37505]]


    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. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: November 13, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes delete 
footnotes from technical specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 
(SR) 4.4.1.2, regarding the reactor coolant system jet pumps, which 
require using data recorded from the original startup test program as a 
baseline for evaluating jet pump performance in accordance with the TS 
SR. Due to physical changes in plant configuration, the original 
baseline data may not reflect the most current performance 
characteristics of the jet pumps, and hence, its use could impact the 
accuracy of the TS SR results. This change provides the flexibility to 
re-establish baseline characteristics when warranted.
    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, with NRC staff edits in 
brackets:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes provide the ability to re-establish 
recirculation pump flow, core flow, or diffuser-to-lower plenum 
differential pressure characteristics, provided as the basis for 
performing the Technical Specification (TS) jet pump surveillances, 
based on physical changes to the plant that could affect the 
accuracy of the TS SR required comparison. 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, or inspected [with the 
exception of a periodic re-baseline of the jet pump test acceptance 
criteria]. The proposed changes do not impact the initiators or 
assumptions of analyzed events, nor do they impact mitigation of 
accidents or transient events. [The proposed changes will continue 
to ensure that potential jet pump degradation is detected prior to 
failure and, as a result, ensure that the current margin of safety 
is maintained during postulated accidents].
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes provide the ability to re-establish 
recirculation pump flow, core flow, or diffuser-to-lower plenum 
differential pressure patterns or characteristics, provided as the 
basis for performing the TS jet pump surveillances, based on 
physical changes to the plant that could affect the accuracy of the 
TS SR required comparison. The proposed changes do not alter plant 
configuration, require that new plant equipment be installed, alter 
assumptions made about accidents previously evaluated, or impact the 
function of plant SSCs or the manner in which SSCs are operated, 
maintained, modified, or inspected [with the exception of a periodic 
re-baseline of the jet pump test acceptance criteria].
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes provide the ability to re-establish 
recirculation pump flow, core flow, or diffuser-to-lower plenum 
differential pressure patterns or characteristics, provided as the 
basis for performing the TS jet pump surveillances, based on 
physical changes to the plant that could affect the accuracy of the 
TS SR required comparison. The proposed changes do not involve any 
physical changes to plant SSCs or the manner in which SSCs are 
operated, maintained, modified, or inspected [with the exception of 
a periodic re-baseline of the jet pump test acceptance criteria]. 
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 do not involve a change in 
initial conditions, system response times, or other parameters 
affecting an accident analysis. [The proposed changes will continue 
to ensure that potential jet pump degradation is detected prior to 
failure and, as a result, ensure that the current margin of safety 
is maintained during postulated accidents.]
    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, 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: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate 
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
Alabama

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

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: June 12, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the current Technical Specifications (TS) 5.2.2.f for the 
Farley, Hatch and Vogtle plants to require either the Operations 
Manager or at least one Operations Superintendent to hold a Senior 
Reactor Operator (SRO) license and to provide conforming changes to TS 
5.3. An application that addressed only the TS 5.2.2.f issue was 
submitted on July 17, 2007, and notice of that application was provided 
in the Federal Register on September 25, 2007, for Farley (72 FR 5480), 
Hatch (72 FR 54481), and Vogtle (72 FR 54482). Due to changes in the 
June 12, 2008 application from those proposed in the July 17, 2007 
application, the changed application is being renoticed in its 
entirety. This notice supersedes the previous notice published in the 
Federal Register on September 25, 2007.
    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 to TS 5.2 revises the requirement concerning 
the Operations management position that must hold an SRO license. At 
least one Operations Superintendent or the Operations Manager will 
continue to maintain an SRO license. The proposed change to TS 5.3.1 
is a clarification regarding the qualifications of

[[Page 37506]]

the Operations Manager. This clarification states that TS 5.2.2.f 
specifies the requirements for the Operations Manager regarding the 
holding of an SRO license. The training, qualification and 
experience requirements for Operations management personnel will 
continue to satisfy the Unit Staff Qualifications as described in 
the applicable TS 5.3.1.
    This change does not impact any accident initiators or analyzed 
events. It does not impact any assumed mitigation capability for any 
accident or transient event. The change does not involve the 
addition or removal of any equipment or any design changes to the 
facility. As the proposed change is administrative in nature, 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment 
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 proposed change to TS 5.2 revises the requirement concerning 
the Operations management position that must hold an SRO license. At 
least one Operations Superintendent or the Operations Manager will 
continue to maintain an SRO license. The proposed change to TS 5.3.1 
is a clarification regarding the qualifications of the Operations 
Manager. This clarification states that TS 5.2.2.f specifies the 
requirements for the Operations Manager regarding the holding of an 
SRO license. The training, qualification and experience requirements 
for Operations management personnel will continue to satisfy the 
Unit Staff Qualifications as described in the applicable TS 5.3.1. 
This change does not involve any physical modifications to plant 
structures, systems, or components (SSCs), or the manner in which 
SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. In 
addition, there is no change in the types or increases in the 
amounts of effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no 
increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation 
exposure. As the proposed change is administrative in nature, 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment 
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.
    The proposed change to TS 5.2 revises the requirement concerning 
the Operations management position that must hold an SRO license. At 
least one Operations Superintendent or the Operations Manager will 
continue to maintain an SRO license. The subject Operations 
Superintendent will be qualified to fill the Operations Manager 
position and have the same management authority over licensed 
operators as the Operations Manager. The proposed change to TS 5.3.1 
is a clarification regarding the qualifications of the Operations 
Manager. This clarification states that TS 5.2.2.f specifies the 
requirements for the Operations Manager regarding the holding of an 
SRO license. The training, qualification and experience requirements 
for Operations management personnel will continue to satisfy the 
Unit Staff Qualifications as described in the applicable TS 5.3.1.
    This change does not involve any physical modifications to SSCs, 
or the manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, 
tested, or inspected. The change does not alter the manner in which 
safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting 
conditions for operation are determined. The setpoints at which 
protective actions are initiated are not altered by the change. As 
the proposed change is administrative in nature, operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment 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: Farley: M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and 
Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, 
Alabama 35201; Hatch: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, 
Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037; Vogtle: 
Mr. Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders, NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 
600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216.
    NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.

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.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423, 
Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, New London County, 
Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: July 13, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
would modify the Technical Specifications (TSs) and facility operating 
licenses in response to the application dated July 13, 2007, as 
supplemented by letters dated December 7, 2007, March 5 and 25, 2008, 
and April 28, 2008. The proposed amendment would establish more 
effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative 
requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room 
envelope in accordance with the Commission-approved TS Task Force 
(TSTF) Standard Technical Specification change traveler TSTF-448, 
Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.'' Additionally, the proposed 
amendment would change the ``irradiated fuel movement'' terminology and 
adopt ``movement of recently irradiated fuel assemblies'' terminology 
consistent with TSTF-448, Revision 3.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: May 
16, 2008 (73 FR 28534).
    Expiration dates of individual notice: June 16, 2008 (Public 
comments) and July 15, 2008 (Hearing requests).
    Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. 
Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: July 16, 2007, as supplemented June 2, 
2008.
    Description of amendment request: To modify the operating licensing 
bases to adopt the alternative source term as allowed in 10 CFR 50.67 
and described in Regulatory Guide 1.183. The licensee proposes to 
revise the licensing basis through reanalysis of the following 
radiological consequences of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
Chapter 15 accidents: Loss-of-Coolant Accident, Fuel-Handling Accident, 
Main Steam Line Break, Steam Generator Tube Rupture, Reactor Coolant 
Pump Shaft Seizure, Control Element Assembly Ejection, and Inadvertent 
Opening of a Main Steam Safety Valve.
    Date of publication of individual notice in the Federal Register: 
June 12, 2008 (73 FR 33460).
    Expiration date of individual notice: July 14, 2008 (comments) and 
August 11, 2008 (hearing).

[[Page 37507]]

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing in connection with these 
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from 
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

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

    Date of application for amendment: June 15, 2007, as supplemented 
by letter dated March 6, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment relocates the 
Inservice Testing (IST) requirements to the administrative section of 
the Technical Specifications (TSs), removes the Inservice Inspection 
(ISI) requirements from the TSs, and establishes a TS Bases Control 
Program. Specifically, the amendment deletes TS 4.0.5, relocates the 
IST requirements to section 6 of the TSs as a separate program, and 
establishes a TS Bases Control Program consistent with NUREG-1431, 
Revision 3.0, ``Standard Technical Specifications--Westinghouse 
Plants.'' This amendment supports the third 10-year intervals of the 
ISI and IST programs at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, Unit 1.
    Date of issuance: June 12, 2008.
    Effective date: Effective as of the date of issuance and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 127.
    Operating License No. NPF-63: The amendment revises the TSs and 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (72 FR 
41782).
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration: No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated June 12, 2008.
    Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel 
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office 
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: February 28, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the 
containment buffering agent used for pH control under post loss-of-
coolant accident (LOCA) conditions, from sodium hydroxide to sodium 
tetraborate.
    Date of issuance: June 9, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 236.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-64: The amendment revised the 
License and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 8, 2008 (73 FR 
19109).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 9, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian 
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Westchester County, New 
York

    Date of application for amendment: December 20, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revise the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) associated with the definition of E Bar and 
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Specific Activity consistent with Revision 
0 to the TS Task force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change 
Document TSTF-490, ``Deletion of E Bar Definition and Revision to RCS 
Specific Activity Tech Spec.''
    Date of issuance: June 17, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 254 and 237.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64: The amendment 
revised the License and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 25, 2008 (73 FR 
15786).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 17, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: June 25, 2007, as supplemented 
on November 14, 2007, January 10, and April 11, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments increased the 
maximum Technical Specification (TS) service water (SW) temperature 
limit from 95 [deg]F to 100 [deg]F, and revised the TS Figure 3.8-1, 
which provides the allowable containment air partial pressure versus SW 
temperature.
    Date of issuance: June 17, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 259 and 259.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: 
Amendments

[[Page 37508]]

changed the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 17, 2007 (72 FR 
39084).
    The supplements dated November 14, 2007, January 10 and April 11, 
2008, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 17, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of June, 2008.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy J. McGinty,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-14342 Filed 6-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P