Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 46926-46935 [E8-18185]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46926-46935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18185]


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

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 17, 2008 to July 30, 2008. The last 
biweekly notice was published on July 29, 2008 (73 FR 43953).

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's 
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public 
File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave 
to intervene is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing 
and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for

[[Page 46927]]

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 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

[[Page 46928]]

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.resource@nrc.gov.
    AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois.
    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, 
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois.
    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, 
LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois.
    AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster 
Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey.
    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 
50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, 
York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania.
    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, 
Illinois.
    Date of amendment request: June 9, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
adopt the Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 
Specification (STS) change TSTF-475, Revision 1. The amendments would: 
(1) (a) Revise the TS surveillance requirement (SR) frequency in TS 
3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY'' (except for Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station), and (b) revise the TS surveillance requirement in 
TS 4.2, ``Reactivity Control,'' Specification D (for Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station); (2) clarify the requirement to fully 
insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for 
operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, ``Source Range 
Monitoring Instrumentation'' (Clinton Power Station only); and (3) 
revise Example 1.4-3 in section 1.4 ``Frequency'' to clarify the 
applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension (Oyster 
Creek Nuclear Generating Station excluded).
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued a notice of 
opportunity for comment in the Federal Register on November 13, 2007 
(72 FR 63935), on possible license amendments adopting TSTF-475 using 
the NRC's consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) for 
amending licensees' TSs, which included a model safety evaluation (SE) 
and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination. 
The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the 
models for referencing in license amendment applications in the Federal 
Register on August 16, 2007 (72 FR 46103), which included the 
resolution of public comments on the model SE. The August 16, 2007, 
notice of availability referenced the November 13, 2007, notice. The 
licensee has affirmed the applicability of the November 13, 2007, NSHC 
determination in its application.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated
    The proposed change generically implements TSTF-475, Revision 1, 
''Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod 
Action.'' TSTF-475, Revision 1, modifies NUREG-1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG-
1434 (BWR/6) STS. The changes: (1) Revise TS testing frequency for 
surveillance requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 in TS 3.1.3, for the subject 
plants, except Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, and the TS 
surveillance requirement in TS 4.2, Specification D for Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station, (2) clarify the requirement to fully insert 
all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation 
(LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, ''Source Range Monitoring 
Instrumentation'' (NUREG-1434 only), and (3) revise Example 1.4-3 in 
Section 1.4, ``Frequency,'' to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 
surveillance test interval extension. This change does not affect 
either the design or operation of the Control Rod Drive Mechanism 
(CRDM). The affected surveillance and Required Action is not considered 
to be an initiator of any analyzed event. Revising the frequency for 
notch testing fully withdrawn control rods will not affect the ability 
of the control rods to shutdown the reactor if required. Given the 
extremely reliable nature of the CRDM, as demonstrated through industry 
operating experience, the proposed monthly notch testing of all 
withdrawn control rods continues to provide a high level of confidence 
in control rod operability. Hence, the overall intent of the notch 
testing surveillances, which is to detect either random stuck control 
rods or identify generic concerns affecting control rod operability, is 
not significantly affected by the proposed change. Requiring

[[Page 46929]]

control rods to be fully inserted when the associated SRM is inoperable 
is consistent with other similar requirements and will increase the 
shutdown margin. The clarification of Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4, 
``Frequency,'' is an editorial change made to provide consistency with 
other discussions in Section 1.4. Therefore, the proposed changes do 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated. The consequences of an accident 
after adopting TSTF-475, Revision 1, are no different than the 
consequences of an accident prior to adoption. Therefore, this change 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a 
New or Different Kind of Accident From any Accident Previously 
Evaluated
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed 
change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in 
the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose 
consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously analyzed. 
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
    TSTF-475, Revision 1, will: (1) Revise the TS SR 3.1.3.2 frequency 
in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' (2) clarify the requirement 
to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition 
for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, ``Source Range Monitoring 
Instrumentation,'' and (3) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4, 
``Frequency,'' to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance 
test interval extension. The GE Nuclear Energy Report, ``CRD Notching 
Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,'' dated November 
2006, concludes that extending the control rod notch test interval from 
weekly to monthly is not expected to impact the reliability of the 
scram system and that the analysis supports the decision to change the 
surveillance frequency. Therefore, the proposed changes in TSTF-475, 
Revision 1, do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests 
involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Bradley Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.
    Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon 
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North 
Carolina.
    Date of amendment request: April 30, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) section 3.7.5a to restore the 
Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) Main Reservoir minimum level to the value 
allowed by the initial operating license as a result of improvements 
made to the Emergency Service Water system. The change will allow 
continued plant operation to a Main Reservoir minimum level of 206 feet 
(ft) Mean Sea Level (MSL) in Modes 1-4, versus the current minimum 
allowed level of 215 ft MSL.
    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 decrease the UHS Main Reservoir minimum 
level does not alter the function, design, or operating practices 
for plant systems or components. The UHS is utilized to remove heat 
loads from plant systems during normal and accident conditions. This 
function is not expected or postulated to result in the generation 
of any accident and continues to adequately satisfy the associated 
safety functions with the proposed change. Therefore, the 
probability of an accident presently evaluated in the safety 
analyses will not be increased because the UHS function does not 
have the potential to be the source of an accident.
    The heat loads that the UHS is designed to accommodate have been 
evaluated for functionality with the reduced level requirement. The 
result of these evaluations is that there is existing margin 
associated with the systems that utilize the UHS for normal and 
accident conditions. This margin is sufficient to accommodate the 
postulated normal and accident heat loads with the proposed change 
to the UHS. Since the safety functions of the UHS are maintained, 
the systems that ensure acceptable offsite dose consequences will 
continue to operate as designed. Therefore, the proposed change does 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not introduce any new modes of plant 
operation and will not result in a change to the design function of 
any structure, system, or component that is used for accident 
mitigation. By allowing the proposed change in the UHS Main 
Reservoir level, only the parameters for UHS operation are changed, 
while the safety functions of the UHS and systems that provide heat 
sink capability continue to be maintained. The UHS function provides 
accident mitigation capabilities and does not reflect the potential 
for accident generation. Therefore, the possibility for creating a 
new or different kind of accident is not feasible because the UHS is 
only utilized for heat removal functions that are not a potential 
source for accident generation.
    The proposed change does not result in any credible new failure 
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in 
the original design and licensing basis. The engineering analyses 
performed to support the proposed change demonstrate that affected 
safety-related systems and components are capable of performing 
their intended safety functions at the reduced Main Reservoir level. 
Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change has been evaluated for systems that are 
needed to support accident mitigation functions as well as normal 
operational evolutions. Operational margins were found to exist in 
the systems that utilize the UHS capabilities such that this 
proposed change will not result in the loss of any safety function 
necessary for normal or accident conditions. While operating margins 
have been reduced by the proposed changes, safety margins have been 
maintained as assumed in the accident analyses for postulated 
events. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel 
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office 
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, 
LaSalle

[[Page 46930]]

County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois.
    Date of amendment request: May 2, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil and 
Starting Air,'' to replace the numerical volume requirements for stored 
diesel fuel oil inventory with requirements that state that volumes 
equivalent to seven days and six days of fuel oil are available. Exelon 
Generation Company is requesting to move the diesel fuel oil numerical 
volumes equivalent to seven-day and six-day supplies to the TS Bases.
    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 TS change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates the numerical volume of diesel 
fuel oil required to support seven-day operation of the onsite DGs 
[diesel generators], and the numerical volume equivalent to a six-
day supply, to licensee control. The specific volumes of fuel oil 
equivalent to a seven-day and six day supply is calculated 
considering the DG manufacturer's fuel oil consumption rates and the 
energy content of ULSD [ultra low sulfur diesel] fuel. Moreover, 
these calculations consider the entire range of API [American 
Petroleum Industry] gravities allowed by the LSCS [LaSalle County 
Station] Diesel Fuel Oil Testing Program. The requirement to meet 
UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] 9.5.4.1.1.d, diesel 
loading assumptions, maintain a seven-day supply, and the actions 
taken when the volume of fuel oil available is less than a six-day 
supply have not changed. These requirements remain consistent with 
the assumptions in the accident analyses, and neither the 
probability, nor the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated will be affected by the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed TS change create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed), or affect the control parameters governing unit 
operation, or the response of plant equipment to transient 
conditions. The proposed change is consistent with the safety 
analysis assumptions.
    Based on the above information, 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 TS change involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates the numerical volumes of diesel 
fuel oil required to support seven-day operation of the onsite DGs, 
and the numerical volumes equivalent to a six-day supply, to 
licensee control. As the bases for the existing limits on diesel 
fuel oil are not changed, no change is made to the accident analysis 
assumptions, and no margin of safety is reduced as part of this 
change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.
    Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota.
    Date of amendment request: June 26, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to amend 
the Technical Specifications, revising existing Condition D of 
Specification 3.5.1, ``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System]--
Operating,'' to: (1) Apply to two entire Low-Pressure Core Injection 
(LPCI) subsystems being inoperable (currently, the Condition applies 
when two LPCl subsystems are inoperable due to inoperable injection 
paths); (2) add a new Condition E to provide a 72-hour completion time 
when one Core Spray subsystem and one LPCl subsystem (or one or two 
LPCl pump(s) are inoperable; (3) add a new Condition F to provide a 72-
hour completion time when both Core Spray subsystems are inoperable; 
and (4) re-designate the Conditions and Required Actions (starting at 
existing letter E) to reflect the insertion of new Conditions E and F 
(i.e., these are purely editorial changes).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its 
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). 
The licensee's NSHC analysis is reproduced below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The low pressure Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystems 
are designed to inject to reflood or to spray the core after any 
size break up to and including a design basis Loss of Coolant 
Accident (LOCA). The proposed changes to the Required Actions and 
associated Completion Times do not change the conditions, operating 
configurations, or minimum amount of operating equipment assumed in 
the safety analysis for accident mitigation. No changes are proposed 
to the manner in which the ECCS provides plant protection or which 
would create new modes of plant operation.
    The proposed changes will not affect the probability of any 
event initiators. There will be no degradation in the performance 
of, or an increase in the number of challenges imposed on, safety 
related equipment assumed to function during an accident situation. 
There will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or 
accident mitigation performance.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the 
method by which any plant systems perform a safety function. This 
request does not affect the normal method of plant operation.
    The proposed changes do not introduce new equipment, which could 
create a new or different kind of accident. No new external threats, 
release pathways, or equipment failure modes are created. No new 
accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or 
limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this request.
    Therefore, the implementation of the proposed changes will not 
create a possibility for an accident of a new or different type than 
those previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The ECCS are designed with sufficient redundancy such that a 
division of low pressure ECCS may be removed from service for 
maintenance or testing. The remaining subsystems are capable of 
providing water and removing heat loads to satisfy the Updated 
Safety Analysis Report requirements for accident mitigation or unit 
safe shutdown.
    There will be no change to the manner in which the safety limits 
or limiting safety system settings are determined nor will there be 
any change to those plant systems necessary to assure the 
accomplishment of protection functions. There will be no change to 
post-LOCA peak clad temperatures.
    For these reasons, the proposed amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.


[[Page 46931]]


    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
the NRC staff's own analysis above, it appears that the three standards 
of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.

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.resource@nrc.gov.
    Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson 
Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina.
    Date of application for amendment: July 17, 2007, as supplemented 
by letters dated November 9, 2007, and April 1, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment establishes more 
effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative 
requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room 
envelope in accordance with the NRC-approved Technical Specification 
Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification change traveler 
TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.'' This technical 
specification improvement was initially made available in the Federal 
Register by the NRC on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022).
    Date of issuance: July 23, 2008.
    Effective date: Effective as of the date of issuance and shall be 
implemented within 180 days.
    Amendment No: 219.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: The amendment 
revises the Technical Specifications and Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR 
49570). The supplements dated November 9, 2007, and April 1, 2008, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The 
Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a 
safety evaluation dated July 23, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, 
Unit No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas.
    Date of application for amendment: March 13, 2008, as supplemented 
by letter dated July 1, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment relocates the 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.7, ``Reactor Coolant System 
Chemistry,'' to the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM). The change is 
consistent with the NUREG 1432, ``Standard Technical Specifications for 
Combustion Engineering Plants.''
    Date of issuance: July 23, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 280.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications/license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR 
25039). The supplement dated July 1, 2008, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 23, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, 
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois.
    Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, 
Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois.
    Date of application for amendments: August 1, 2007, as supplemented 
by letters dated February 26 and May 1, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the 
technical specification allowable value (AV) for the Reactor Protection 
System (RPS) Instrumentation Function 10, ``Turbine Condenser Vacuum--
Low,'' specified in TS Table 3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor Protection System 
Instrumentation,'' for Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 
(DNPS), and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2. The 
amendments also revise the Channel Functional Test and Channel 
Calibration Surveillance Test Interval (STI) for DNPS TS Table 3.3.1.1-
1, Function 10. As part of the DNPS STI revision, surveillance 
requirement 3.3.1.10, ``Channel Calibration,'' which is specific to the 
Turbine Condenser Vacuum--Low instrument function, is deleted since it 
is no longer applicable.
    Date of issuance: July 22, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 227, 219, 239, 234.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, DPR-29 and 
DPR-30. The amendments revise the Technical Specifications and 
Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (72 FR

[[Page 46932]]

68214) The February 26 and May 1, 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 amendments is contained in a 
Safety Evaluation dated July 22, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 
County, Wisconsin.
    Date of application for amendments: March 31, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments to the Technical 
Specification delete the definition of E Bar and replace the current 
limits on reactor coolant system (RCS) gross specific activity with a 
new limit on RCS noble gas activity. The noble gas activity is now 
based on dose equivalent Xenon-133 definition and replaces the E Bar 
definition. The changes are consistent with Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission-approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 
Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-490, Revision 0.
    Date of issuance: July 14, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 233, 238.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: 
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications/License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR 
25041). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 14, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (NMP-2), Oswego County, New York.
    Date of application for amendment: July 12, 2007, as supplemented 
on June 19, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment establishes more 
effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative 
requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room 
envelope in accordance with the NRC-approved Technical Specification 
(TS) Task Force Traveler (TSTF)-448, Revision 3, and changes the NMP2 
TSs related to control room envelope habitability in TS section 3.7.2, 
``Control Room Envelope Filtration (CREF) System,'' and TS section 5.5, 
``Programs and Manuals.'' The amendment also adds a license condition 
to support implementation of the TS changes.
    Date of issuance: July 15, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
120 days.
    Amendment No.: 126
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-69: Amendment revised 
the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72 
FR 51864). The supplemental letter dated June 19, 2008, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's initial proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 15, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NMP1), Oswego County, New York.
    Date of application for amendment: July 12, 2007, as supplemented 
on June 19, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment establishes more 
effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative 
requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room 
envelope in accordance with the NRC-approved Technical Specification 
(TS) Task Force Traveler (TSTF)-448, Revision 3, and changes the NMP1 
TSs related to control room envelope habitability in TS Section 3.4.5, 
``Control Room Air Treatment System,'' and TS Section 6.5, ``Programs 
and Manuals.'' The amendment also adds a license condition to support 
implementation of the TS changes.
    Date of issuance: July 15, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
120 days.
    Amendment No.: 195.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63: Amendment revised 
the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72 
FR 51863). The supplemental letter dated June 19, 2008, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's initial proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 15, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, 
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, 
Minnesota.
    Date of application for amendments: July 19, 2007, as supplemented 
by letter dated June 25, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise surveillance 
requirements for the duration of the heater tests for technical 
specification (TS) 3.6.9, ``Shield Building Ventilation System 
(SBVS),'' TS 3.7.12, ``Auxiliary Building Special Ventilation System 
(ABSVS),'' TS 3.7.13, ``Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System 
(SFPSVS),'' and the frequency for performance of filter tests in TS 
5.5.9, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP).
    Date of issuance: July 18, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 186, 176.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 9, 2007 (72 FR 
57355). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 18, 2008. The information 
contained in the June 25, 2008, supplement is clarifying in nature and 
does not change either the scope of the amendment request or the no 
significant hazards consideration determination.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas.
    Date of amendment request: June 26, 2007, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 29 and May 27, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments added a new license 
condition (12) for Unit 1 and new license condition (10) for Unit 2 on 
the control room envelope (CRE) habitability program. In addition, the 
amendments revised the Technical Specification (TS) requirements 
related to the habitability of the CRE in TS 3.7.7, ``Control Room 
Makeup and Cleanup Filtration System (CRMCFS),'' and added the new 
Control Room Envelope Habitability Program to TS Section 6.8, 
``Administrative Controls--Procedures, Programs, and Manuals.'' These 
changes are consistent with the NRC-approved TS Task Force (TSTF)

[[Page 46933]]

Standard Technical Specification change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, 
``Control Room Envelope Habitability.'' The availability of the TS 
improvement was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2007 
(72 FR 2022), as part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement 
Process.
    Date of issuance: July 29, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--185; Unit 2--172.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2007 (72 FR 
45460). The supplemental letters dated April 29 and May 27, 2008, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The 
Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a 
Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the 
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules 
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as 
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of 
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has 
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area 
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of 
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the 
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If 
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the 
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments 
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has 
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
significant hazards consideration is involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in 
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have 
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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 
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating 
License, 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 System's (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.resource@nrc.gov.
    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
respect to the issuance of the amendment. 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, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are 
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at 
1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed 
by the above date, 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

[[Page 46934]]

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 identify 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 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and 
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner 
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.\1\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To the extent that the applications contain attachments and 
supporting documents that are not publicly available because they 
are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information, 
petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the 
applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a 
protective order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha 
designation within one of the following groups:
    1. Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the 
applications.
    2. Environmental--primarily concerns/issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the 
applications.
    3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined 
above.
    As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors 
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall 
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act 
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a 
petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another 
sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to 
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that 
contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor a representative who shall have the authority to act for the 
petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.
    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. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the 
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing 
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any 
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
    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