Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 43953-43960 [E8-17102]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43953-43960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17102]


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

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 July 3, 2008 to July 16, 2008. The last 
biweekly notice was published on July 15, 2008 (73 FR 40629).

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-

[[Page 43954]]

0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this 
Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 
6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written 
comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document 
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of 
requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is 
discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing 
and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the 
Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' 
in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 
10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at 
One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's 
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request 
for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 
days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the 
Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety 
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; 
and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an 
appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be 
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC 
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process 
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the Internet 
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. 
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they 
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor 
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
hearingdocket@nrc.gov, or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM 
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the 
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and is 
available at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-
viewer.html. 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

[[Page 43955]]

General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the 
Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the 
filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. 
Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or 
representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate 
before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they 
can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the 
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line, 
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or 
locally, (301) 415-4737.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance 
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting 
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such 
filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 
Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited 
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a 
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all 
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail 
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition 
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be 
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later 
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or 
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal 
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, 
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted 
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the 
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, 
participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in 
their submission.
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

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: March 25, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the reactor coolant system (RCS) specific activity to utilize a 
new indicator, Dose Equivalent Xenon-133 and only take into account the 
noble gas activity in the primary coolant, instead of the current 
indicator, average disintegration energy (E Bar). Specifically, the 
current Technical Specification 3.4.8, ``Specific Activity,'' limit on 
RCS gross specific activity would be replaced with a new limit on RCS 
noble gas specific activity. This change was proposed by the industry's 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF-490, 
``Deletion of E Bar Definition and Revision to RCS Specific Activity 
Tech. Spec. [Technical Specification].'' The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in 
the Federal Register on November 20, 2006 (71 FR 67170), on possible 
amendments concerning TSTF-490, including a model safety evaluation and 
model no significant hazards (NSHC) determination, using the 
consolidated line item improvement process. The NRC staff subsequently 
issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in 
license amendment applications in the Federal Register on March 15, 
2007 (72 FR 12217). Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., affirmed the 
applicability of the following NSHC determination in its application 
dated March 25, 2008.
    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 annotations:

    Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident 
Previously Evaluated.
    Reactor coolant specific activity is not an initiator for any 
accident previously evaluated. The Completion Time when primary 
coolant gross activity is not within limit is not an initiator for 
any accident previously evaluated. The current variable limit on 
primary coolant iodine concentration is not an initiator to any 
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the proposed change does 
not significantly increase the probability of an accident. The 
proposed change will limit primary coolant noble gases to 
concentrations consistent with the accident analyses. The proposed 
change to the Completion Time has no impact on the consequences of 
any design basis accident since the consequences of an accident 
during the extended Completion Time are the same as the consequences 
of an accident during the Completion Time. As a result, the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility 
of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously 
Evaluated.
    The proposed change in specific activity limits does not alter 
any physical part of the plant nor does it affect any plant 
operating parameter [besides the allowable specific activity in the 
RCS.] [The change which impacts the allowable specific activity in 
the RCS is consistent with the accident analyses.] [Therefore] [t]he 
change does not create the potential for a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously calculated.
    Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in [a] Margin of Safety.
    The proposed change revises the limits on noble gas 
radioactivity in the primary coolant. [The proposed change will have 
no impact on the radiological consequences of a design basis 
accident because it will limit the RCS noble gas specific activity 
to be consistent with the accident analysis.] The proposed change is 
consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses [and will 
ensure the monitored values protect the initial assumptions in the 
safety analyses.] [Therefore the change does no involve a reduction 
in a margin of safety.]
    Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous 
discussion of the amendment request, the requested change

[[Page 43956]]

does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, with 
consideration of the NRC staff annotations, 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, Esquire, Senior Nuclear 
Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Building 475, 5th Floor, 
Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: September 5, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
remove notes associated with License Amendment No. 221 regarding the 
inoperability of the Unit 4 Rod Position Indication (RPI) system for 
control rod F-8 in Shutdown Bank B and Amendment No. 230 from 
associated notes regarding the inoperability of the Unit 3 RPI system 
for control rod M-6 in Control Bank C.
    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. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this 
proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed amendments do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated because the proposed amendments are purely 
administrative in nature. The proposed amendments do not make 
substantive changes to the Technical Specifications and do not 
affect any assumptions contained in plant safety analyses, the 
physical design and/or operation of the plant; and they do not 
affect the Technical Specifications that preserve safety analysis 
assumption.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the probability or 
consequences of accidents previously analyzed.
    2. Does the proposed change create the probability of a new or 
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed administrative changes to the Technical 
Specifications do not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any previously evaluated, since the proposed 
amendments will not change the physical plant or the modes of plant 
operation defined in the facility operating licenses. No new failure 
mode is introduced due to the proposed administrative changes, since 
the proposed changes do not involve the addition or modification of 
equipment, nor do they alter the design or operation of affected 
plant systems, structures, or components.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendments would not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    No. The operating limits and functional capabilities of the 
affected systems, structures, and components are unchanged by the 
proposed amendment. The changed Technical Specifications remove 
notes which are no longer in effect and do not reduce any of the 
margins of safety.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendments would not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.

    Based upon the reasoning presented 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: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 
California

    Date of amendment requests: April 3, 2008.
    Description of amendment requests: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater 
System,'' to remove Surveillance Requirement 3.7.5.6, and revise TS 
3.7.6, ``Condensate Storage Tank (CST) and Fire Water Storage Tank 
(FWST),'' to remove the FWST level requirements, revise the CST level 
requirements, and revise TS 3.7.6 to be consistent with the NUREG-1431 
Standard Technical Specifications.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:
    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes would revise TS 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary 
Feedwater System,'' to remove SR 3.7.5.6, and revise TS 3.7.6, 
``Condensate Storage Tank (CST) and Fire Water Storage Tank 
(FWST),'' to remove the FWST level requirements, revise the CST 
level requirements, and revise TS 3.7.6 to be consistent with the 
NUREG-1431 Standard Technical Specifications. The proposed changes 
reflect a design change to the CST that enables the CST to provide 
the entire required source of usable volume of safety grade water to 
the AFW System pumps to remove decay and sensible heat from the 
Reactor Coolant System (RCS).
    The CST and AFW System pumps are not accident initiators, and 
are credited to mitigate accidents and events. The changes have no 
impact on the method by which the CST or AFW system performs its 
functions or the required AFW system pump flowrate to be provided. 
With the changes, a sufficient quantity of water will continue to be 
supplied by the CST to the AFW pumps to remove heat from the RCS in 
the event of a loss of normal feedwater to the SGs, and thus the 
FWST volume is no longer required to be contained in the TS.
    With the change, the overall quantity of water required by TS 
3.7.6 to be available for the AFW pumps is reduced. This reduction 
in available AFW supply is acceptable based on revised plant-
specific CST minimum storage volume calculations, which incorporate 
the design of the replacement Westinghouse Model Delta 54 Steam 
Generators, and the design change in Unit 2 to a Tcold 
upper head design.
    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 CST and AFW pumps are not accident initiators, and are 
credited to mitigate accidents and events. The changes have no 
impact on the method by which the CST or AFW system performs its 
functions or the required AFW system pump flowrate to be provided.
    The increase in the available CST volume enables the CST for 
each unit to provide the required volume for the limiting natural 
circulation cooldown event without reliance on the FWST. The FWST 
will no longer need to be manually transferred to the AFW System 
pump suction when CST inventory is depleted following a natural 
circulation cooldown event.
    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 accident analyses credit CST inventory to meet RCS design 
pressure, containment design pressure, 10 CFR 100 dose limits, and 
10 CFR 50.36 peak cladding temperature limits. The increase in the 
TS 3.7.6 available CST volume enables the CST for each unit to

[[Page 43957]]

provide the required volume for the limiting natural circulation 
cooldown event without reliance on the FWST. The CST volume for the 
natural circulation cooldown event is greater than that required to 
mitigate accidents. Thus the CST will provide the entire required 
source of usable volume of safety grade water to the AFW System 
pumps to remove decay and sensible heat from the RCS.
    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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Balwant K. Singal.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 25, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to remove the current 
restriction on operation of the hydrogen water chemistry (HWC) system 
at low power levels. Currently, the TSs state that the HWC system shall 
not be placed in service until reactor power reaches 20% of rated 
thermal power. The original restriction on HWC operation was intended 
to prevent increases in main steamline (MSL) radiation background 
levels before the MSL radiation monitors (MSLRM) setpoints were 
adjusted because it was assumed that the MSL radiation would increase 
significantly with HWC operation. The licensee's application stated 
that the present HWC injection rate does not cause an appreciable 
increase in MSL radiation, therefore, the reason for prohibiting HWC 
operation below 20% of rated thermal power no longer exists.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) proposes to amend Technical 
Specification (TS) 3/4.3.2 to remove a limitation on operation of 
the Hydrogen Water Chemistry (HWC) System below 20% of rated thermal 
power. The original HWC system injected hydrogen into the condensate 
system at levels that caused significant increases in the main 
steamline radiation background. As a consequence, it was necessary 
to also increase the Main Steamline Radiation Monitor (MSLRM) 
setpoints to prevent undesirable MSLRM alarms and reactor water 
sample line isolations. However, the MSLRM is credited with 
mitigating the consequences of a Control Rod Drop Accident (CRDA) 
that is of concern only below 10% power. An increase in setpoint 
would reduce the sensitivity of the MSLRM to fuel failures resulting 
from a CRDA. Therefore, increasing the MSLRM setpoints is permitted 
only above 20% of rated thermal power where a control rod drop was 
analyzed not to create fuel failures. As a result of a revised 
system application, the HWC injection rate is now much lower than 
that applied originally, and main steamline radiation does not 
increase significantly when HWC is placed in service. Consequently 
there is no impact on the MSLRM setpoints at low power (below 20%).
    HWC injection itself is not associated with any accident or 
operational occurrence analyzed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR). The purpose of HWC is to reduce Intergranular Stress 
Corrosion Cracking (IGSCC) in the reactor coolant system. IGSCC can 
lead to a loss of coolant accident. Lowering the power level at 
which HWC injection is initiated will increase the time that 
hydrogen is injected and improve IGSCC prevention. Low power 
operation is recommended, by EPRI [Electric Power Research 
Institute], to increase the time that HWC is in service. EPRI has 
evaluated HWC operation on plant safety systems and concluded that 
there are no adverse effects associated with HWC injection at low 
power. The implementation of low power HWC operation will follow the 
guidelines in BWRVIP-156 [Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals 
Project 156 (BWRVIP-156), ``Generic Guidelines for Improvement in 
HWC System Availability,'' EPRI Report No. 1011706] to ensure 
reliable operation of the HWC system.
    The [CRDA] is the only accident applicable to the MSLRM 
isolation actuation function. This accident can result in fuel 
failures if it occurs below 10% of rated thermal power but is not of 
concern above 10% power. The MSLRM trips the two Mechanical Vacuum 
Pumps (MVP) and isolates reactor water sample lines on high main 
steamline radiation. The MSLRM is credited with fuel failure 
detection and MVP trips in the CRDA Analysis. The MVPs are secured 
prior to reaching 5% of rated thermal power. The proposed change 
does not alter the present TS requirement prohibiting MSLRM setpoint 
increases below 20% of rated thermal power and thereby does not 
change the plant response assumed in the CRDA Analysis.
    In conclusion, the proposed change will not significantly 
increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated[?]
    Response: No.
    The HWC injects hydrogen into the secondary condensate pump 
suction lines and injects oxygen into the Offgas system. The 
existing TS prohibits HWC operation at power levels below 20% of 
rated thermal power. The proposed change would permit HWC at any 
power level. Operating procedures would begin the HWC injection at 
approximately 5% power when sufficient condensate flow is available 
to transport the hydrogen in the reactor coolant system. Injection 
of hydrogen into the reactor coolant system has proven to be 
beneficial to the reactor vessel and recirculation system piping 
components. The implementation of low power HWC operation will 
follow the guidelines in BWRVIP-156 [ ] to ensure reliable operation 
of the HWC system. The TS requirements for the MSLRM Isolation 
Actuation functions will remain unchanged. 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 change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The safety margin applicable to this change is the MSLRM 
setpoint to main steamline radiation assumed in the CRDA Analysis. 
The MSLRM trip of the MVPs is credited in the CRDA Analysis. The 
MSLRM setpoint requirements are not changed by this proposed license 
amendment; both the existing and proposed footnotes associated with 
the MSLRM Isolation Actuation TS permit increasing the MSLRM 
setpoints only if the plant is operated above 20% of thermal power. 
This is outside the power range at which the CRDA is of concern. 
There is no other safety margin associated with operation of HWC. 
Therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, with changes in the areas 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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business 
Unit--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

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

    Date of amendment request: June 9, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise 
action statements in Technical Specification (TS) 3.12 for insertion

[[Page 43958]]

limit and shutdown margin requirements, revise the applicability for 
the operability of the rod position indication and bank demand position 
indication systems, revise/add action statements for rod position 
indication, and add action statements for group step demand counters. 
These revisions enhance completeness of the Surry TS and are consistent 
with NUREG-1431, Revision 3.0, ``Standard Technical Specifications, 
Westinghouse Plants.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is being made to enhance the completeness of 
the Surry TS and to achieve consistency with NUREG-1431 with respect 
to requirements and action statements for insertion limits, SDM, rod 
position indication, and group step demand counters. The proposed 
change does not add or modify any plant systems, structures or 
components (SSCs). Thus, the proposed change does not affect 
initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or 
transient events. Therefore, this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
Although the proposed change revises the applicability of the 
operability requirements for the Rod Position Indication and Bank 
Demand Position Indication Systems, it does not involve a change in 
methods governing plant startup, operation, or shutdown. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or 
precursors, nor does it alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 
configuration of the facility. The proposed change does not alter or 
prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to 
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed 
acceptance limits. Thus, this change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not result in plant operation in a 
configuration outside the analyses or design basis, nor does it 
alter the condition or performance of equipment or systems used in 
accident mitigation or assumed in any accident analysis. Therefore, 
the proposed TS 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, Esq., Senior Counsel, 
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, 
VA 23219.
    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.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 19, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
revises the technical specification Actions for the Emergency Diesel 
Generators (EDG) to remove the conditional surveillance requirement to 
test the alternate EDG whenever one EDG is taken out of service for 
pre-planned preventive maintenance and testing.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: June 
13, 2008 (73 FR 33853).
    Expiration date of individual notice: August 12, 2008.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

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

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

    Date of application for amendment: January 26, 2006, as 
supplemented by letters dated June 6, October 11, 2007, and April 10, 
2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The proposed changes would revise 
TS 3.3.1.1, ``Reactor Protection System (PRS) Instrumentation,'' Table 
3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor Protection System Instrumentation,'' Function 8, 
``Scram Discharge Volume [SDV] Water Level--High,'' item b, ``Float 
Switch,'' by

[[Page 43959]]

replacing SR 3.3.1.1.9 with SR 3.3.1.1.12. This change will effectively 
revise the surveillance frequency for the SDV level float switch from 
every 92 days to every 24 months.
    Date of issuance: June 30, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 179.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 22, 2007 (72 FR 
28719).
    The June 6, October 11, 2007, and April 10, 2008 supplements 
contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's 
initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: July 2, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment would delete 
operating license (OL) condition 2.C (5), ``Fuel Burnup,'' which 
restricts maximum rod average burnup to 60 giga-watt days per metric 
ton uranium (GWD/MTU). Deletion of the OL condition will provide the 
opportunity to increase maximum rod average burnup to as high as 62 
GWD/MTU and allow fuel management flexibility.
    Date of issuance: July 2, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 198.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR 
49571).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 2, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington

    Date of application for amendment: July 30, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises 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: June 30, 2008.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 150 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 207.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR 
49573).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 13, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 3.6.5.8 to require verification that the reactor 
building spray nozzles are unobstructed following maintenance that 
could result in nozzle blockage, in lieu of the current SR of 
performing the test every 10 years.
    Date of issuance: July 9, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 233.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised 
the Technical Specifications/license.Date of initial notice in Federal 
Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR 25038).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 9, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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 application for amendments: January 9, 2008, as 
supplemented on February 6, 2008, March 5, 2008 and May 22, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specifications (TSs) 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation 
System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' Table 3.3.2-1, ``Engineered Safety 
Feature Actuation System Instrumentation,'' Function 7.b, and TS 3.5.4, 
``Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST),'' Surveillance Requirement (SR) 
3.5.4.2. The proposed change to TS 3.3.2 lowered the nominal trip 
setpoint and corresponding allowable value of the refueling water 
storage tank (RWST) Level-Low Low at which the semi-automatic 
switchover from the RWST to the containment emergency sump occurs.
    Date of issuance: July 7, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--151; Unit 2--132.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments 
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 29, 2008 (73 FR 
5230).
    The supplements dated February 6, 2008, March 5, 2008 and May 22, 
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 July 7, 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, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of application for amendments: July 13, 2007, as supplemented 
on August 20, 2007.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) requirements related to main control 
room and emergency switchgear room envelope habitability. These changes 
are consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved 
Revision 3 of Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard 
Technical Specifications (STS) Change Traveler TSTF-448, ``Control Room 
Habitability.''
    Date of issuance: July 7, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 260, 260.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: 
Amendments changed the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2007 (72 FR 
45463).
    The supplement dated August 20, 2007, provided additional 
information

[[Page 43960]]

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 July 7, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of July 2008.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E8-17102 Filed 7-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P