Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 6662-6674 [E9-2553]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6662-6674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2553]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-045]


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 January 14, 2009 to January 28, 2009. The 
last biweekly notice was published on January 27, 2009 (74 FR 4767).

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, TWB-05-B01M, 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. 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.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect

[[Page 6663]]

to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license. 
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.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
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 all adjudicatory 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-

[[Page 6664]]

submittals.html or by calling the NRC electronic filing Help Desk, 
which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday 
through Friday. The help electronic filing Help Desk can be contacted 
by telephone at 1-866-672-7640 or by e-mail at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov.
    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).
    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.

Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North 
Carolina

    Date of amendments request: November 24, 2008.
    Description of amendments request: The proposed amendments would 
delete Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.3.2, ``Containment Atmosphere 
Dilution (CAD) System,'' and the associated TS Bases that will result 
in modifications to containment combustible gas control TS requirements 
as permitted by 10 CFR 50.44. This change is consistent with NRC-
approved Revision 2 to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 
Improved Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-478, 
``BWR [Boiling Water Reactor] Technical Specification Changes that 
Implement the Revised Rule for Combustible Gas Control.'' TSTF-478, 
Revision 2 also makes TS and associated TS Bases changes for the TS 
section on Drywell Cooling System Fans. Since Brunswick Steam Electric 
Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2 TSs do not have this TS section, these 
changes are not needed. The availability of TSTF-478 was announced in 
the Federal Register on November 21, 2007 (72 FR 65610), as part of the 
consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). The licensee 
affirmed the applicability of the no significant hazard consideration 
(NSHC) determination in its application dated November 24, 2008.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the analysis of the 
issue of NDHD that was adopted by the licensee 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 Containment Atmosphere Dilution (CAD) system is not an 
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. The TS Required 
Actions taken when a drywell cooling system fan is inoperable are 
not initiators to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased.
    The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines a design basis 
accident (DBA) hydrogen release and the Commission has subsequently 
found that the DBA loss of coolant accident (LOCA) hydrogen release 
is not risk significant. In addition, CAD has been determined to be 
ineffective at mitigating hydrogen releases from the more risk 
significant beyond design basis accidents that could threaten 
containment integrity. Therefore, elimination of the CAD system will 
not significantly increase the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated. The consequences of an accident while relying 
on the revised TS Required Actions for drywell cooling system fans 
are no different than the consequences of the same accidents under 
the current Required Actions. As a result, the consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated is [are] not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Criterion 2: The proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed 
change. The proposed change permits physical alteration of the plant 
involving removal of the CAD system. The CAD system is not an 
accident precursor, nor does its existence or elimination have any 
adverse impact on the pre-accident state of the reactor core or 
post-accident confinement of radionuclides within the containment 
building from any design basis event. The changes to the TS do not 
alter assumptions made in the safety analysis, but reflect changes 
to the design requirements allowed under the revised 10 CFR 50.44. 
The proposed change is consistent with the revised safety analysis 
assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    Criterion 3: The proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The Commission has determined that the DBA LOCA hydrogen release 
is not risk significant, therefore is not required to be analyzed in 
a facility accident analysis. The proposed change reflects this new 
position and, due to remaining plant equipment, instrumentation, 
procedures, and programs that provide effective mitigation of and 
recovery from reactor accidents, including postulated beyond design 
basis events, does not result in a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on the above, the NRC concludes that the proposed change 
presents no significant hazards

[[Page 6665]]

consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, 
accordingly, a finding of ``no significant hazards consideration'' is 
justified. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 14, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would: (1) 
Delete Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirement (SR) 
3.1.3.2 and revise SR 3.1.3.3, (2) remove reference to SR 3.1.3.2 from 
Required Action A.2 of TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' (3) 
renumber SRs 3.1.3.3 through 3.1.3.5 to reflect the deletion of SR 
3.1.3.2, and (4) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4, ``Frequency,'' to 
clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval 
extension.
    The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity to comment in the 
Federal Register on August 16, 2007 (72 FR 46103), on possible 
amendments to revise the plant-specific TSs, modify TS control rod SR 
testing frequency, clarify TS control insertion requirements, and 
clarify SR frequency discussions, including a model safety evaluation 
and model no significant hazards consideration (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 November 13, 2007 (72 FR 63935). The licensee affirmed the 
applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application dated 
January 14, 2009. The licensee is not proposing to clarify the 
requirement to fully insert all insertable rods for the limiting 
condition for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, 
``Source Range Monitor (SRM) Instrumentation,'' because the 
clarification is already included in the Columbia Generating Station 
TS.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of NSHC adopted by the licensee 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 [Source Range Monitor] 
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, ``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, 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. 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 [General Electric] 
Nuclear Energy Report, ``CRD [Control Rod Drive] 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 are acceptable and do not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee 
and, based upon this review, it appears that the 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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: June 30, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Technical Specification requirements related to Refueling Water 
Tank (RWT) minimum contained volume of borated water. The proposed 
changes will make permanent the current administrative RWT minimum 
level of 32.5 feet for both units.
    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) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not impact the initiation or probability 
of occurrence of any accident.
    The proposed changes will not impact assumptions or conditions 
previously used in the radiological consequence evaluations nor 
affect mitigation of these consequences due to an accident described 
in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]. Also, the 
proposed changes will not impact a plant system such that previously 
analyzed structures, systems, and components (SSCs) could be more 
likely to fail. The SSCs will continue to perform their intended 
safety functions. The initiating conditions and assumptions for 
accidents described in the UFSAR remain as analyzed. The proposed 
changes do not adversely affect the protective and mitigative 
capabilities of the plant. The containment sump pH calculations are 
not adversely impacted by the proposed change to the RWT volume. The 
offsite and control room doses will continue to meet the 
requirements of 10 CFR 100 and 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, Design 
Criterion 19.
    Based on the above evaluation, it is reasonable to conclude that 
the proposed amendment does not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated.
    (2) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    No new or different components or plant physical changes are 
involved with the proposed change. The currently installed equipment 
will not be operated in a new or

[[Page 6666]]

different manner. No new or different system interactions are 
created, and no new processes are introduced. The proposed changes 
will not introduce new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators not already considered in the design and licensing bases. 
The possibility of a new or different malfunction of safety-related 
equipment is not created. No new accident scenarios, transient 
precursors, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result 
of these changes. There will be no adverse effects or challenges 
imposed on any safety-related system as a result of the proposed 
changes.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    (3) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    The proposed changes raising the minimum RWT contained volume of 
borated water do not affect the manner in which safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation 
are determined. The change enhances the water available for 
recirculation therefore, maintaining and enhancing the margin of 
safety.
    The safety analyses acceptance criteria are not affected by 
these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant 
operation outside of the design basis.
    Therefore, operation in accordance with the proposed amendment 
would 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 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.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: July 10, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to diesel fuel 
oil testing consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved 
Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) TSTF-374, ``Revision 
to TS 5.5.13 and Associated TS Bases for Diesel Fuel Oil, `` Revision 
0. This amendment would revise TSs by relocating references to specific 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards for fuel 
oil testing to licensee-controlled documents and adding alternate 
criteria to the ``clear and bright'' acceptance test for new fuel oil.
    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:
    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard 
references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a 
licensee-controlled document. Requirements to perform testing in 
accordance with applicable ASTM standards are retained in the TS as 
are requirements to perform surveillances of both new and stored 
diesel fuel oil. Future changes to the licensee controlled document 
will be evaluated pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, 
``Changes, tests and experiments,'' to ensure that such changes do 
not result in more than a minimal increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. In addition, the 
``clear and bright'' test used to establish the acceptability of new 
fuel oil for use prior to addition to storage tanks has been 
expanded to recognize more rigorous testing of water and sediment 
content. Relocating the specific ASTM standard references from the 
TS to a licensee-controlled document and allowing a water and 
sediment content test to be performed to establish the acceptability 
of new fuel oil will not affect nor degrade the ability of the 
emergency diesel generators (DGs) to perform their specified safety 
function. Fuel oil quality will continue to meet ASTM requirements.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely 
affect the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to 
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences 
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The 
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment 
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating 
the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. 
Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts 
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor 
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public 
radiation exposures.
    Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard 
references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a 
licensee-controlled document. In addition, the ``clear and bright'' 
test used to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use 
prior to addition to storage tanks has been expanded to allow a 
water and sediment content test to be performed to establish the 
acceptability of new fuel oil. The changes do not involve a physical 
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment 
will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The requirements retained in the TS continue to require 
testing of the diesel fuel oil to ensure the proper functioning of 
the DGs.
    Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard 
references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a 
licensee-controlled document. Instituting the proposed changes will 
continue to ensure the use of applicable ASTM standards to evaluate 
the quality of both new and stored fuel oil designated for use in 
the emergency DGs. Changes to the licensee-controlled document are 
performed in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. This 
approach provides an effective level of regulatory control and 
ensures that diesel fuel oil testing is conducted such that there is 
no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The ``clear and bright'' test used to establish the 
acceptability of new fuel oil for use prior to addition to storage 
tanks has been expanded to allow a water and sediment content test 
to be performed to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil. The 
margin of safety provided by the DGs is unaffected by the proposed 
changes since there continue to be TS requirements to ensure fuel 
oil is of the appropriate quality for emergency DG use. The proposed 
changes provide the flexibility needed to improve fuel oil sampling 
and analysis methodologies while maintaining sufficient controls to 
preserve the current margins of safety.
    Based upon the reasoning presented above, 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.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 31, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would modify 
the transformer allowed outage time

[[Page 6667]]

(AOT) in the Fort Calhoun Station Technical Specifications (TS) 
Sections 2.7(2)a., 2.7(2)b., and 2.7(2)c., and delete the associated 
2.7(2) special reporting requirements in TS 5.9.3j.
    The proposed changes would revise TS 2.7(2)a. to allow both 
auxiliary power transformers, T1A-1 and T1A-2, to be inoperable for a 
period of 72 hours, consistent with NUREG-1432, Standard Technical 
Specifications for Combustion Engineering Plants, and would revise TS 
2.7(2)b. and c. to impose a limit of 7 days for plant operation in the 
event that house service transformers T1A-3 and/or T1A-4 become 
inoperable.
    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 remove the allowance for unlimited plant 
operation in the event of a degraded or inoperable 161 kilovolt (KV) 
source does not adversely impact the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated. Because the change imposes a more restrictive 
allowed outage time (AOT) than that which currently exists, there 
would be a reduced probability that the plant would operate in the 
future for an extended period without the 161 KV circuit operable. 
Further, analyses for abnormal operational occurrences (AOOs) and 
design basis accidents (DBAs) assume that all offsite power circuits 
are lost when it is conservative to make such an assumption. The 
successful mitigation of those accident scenarios is based on the 
assumption that diesel generators are the only source of alternating 
current (AC) power supplying safeguards loads. The proposed change 
does not affect the operability requirements for the emergency 
diesel generators (EDGs) and therefore does not impact the 
consequences of an analyzed accident.
    The proposed change to remove the requirement to verify diesel 
generator operability by ensuring that relevant surveillances have 
been performed in the event of a degraded or inoperable 161 KV 
source has no impact on the probability of an accident since diesel 
generators are not initiators for any analyzed event. The 
consequences of an accident are not impacted because diesel 
generator operability is controlled by other portions of Technical 
Specification (TS) 2.7, which ensures that required surveillances 
are performed. Appropriate limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) 
are entered in the event that EDG surveillance criteria are not met.
    The proposed change to the allowed outage time for inoperability 
of auxiliary transformers (powered from the 345 KV offsite source) 
from 24 to 72 hours does not significantly increase the probability 
of an accident since the only impact of not having auxiliary 
transformers is that there would be no offsite source to backup 
power to plant buses in the event that the preferred source of 
offsite power is lost (i.e., the 161 KV source). Historical 
experience with the reliability of the 161 KV has shown the power 
supply has been highly reliable. The likelihood of losing 161 KV 
power is not significantly different over a 72-hour period from the 
likelihood over a 24-hour period. The consequences of an analyzed 
event does not change allowing the 345 KV source to be inoperable 
for 72 hours as opposed to 24 hours since the 345 KV source is not 
credited as a mitigating power source.
    The administrative changes to add ``T1A'' to the house service 
transformer T1A-2 equipment number in TS 2.7(2)a. and add a period 
to the text in TS 5.9.3i. are being made for consistency and 
clarification. The special reporting requirement is deleted from TS 
2.7(2)b., 2.7(2)c., and 5.9.3j., as there is no method for the NRC 
to provide the concurrence required via the special reporting 
requirements in the current TS. The administrative change to TS 
2.7(2)c. clarifies that the telephone notification will be made to 
the NRC Operations Center within 4 hours after inoperability of both 
transformers.
    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 to remove the allowance for unlimited plant 
operation in the event of a degraded or inoperable 161 KV source 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident since the design function of the affected equipment is not 
changed. No new interactions between systems or components are 
created. No new failure mechanisms of associated systems will exist. 
The consequence of losing offsite power sources during plant 
operation is precisely the same with the proposed change as it was 
previously. In fact, the proposed change is more restrictive in 
terms of operating with degraded power sources than is the current 
requirement.
    The proposed change to remove the requirement to verify diesel 
generator operability by ensuring that relevant surveillances have 
been performed in the event of a degraded or inoperable 161 KV 
source will not create a possibility for a new or different type of 
accident since the operability requirements for EDGs will be 
maintained in accordance with surveillance and operability 
requirements which exist elsewhere in TS 2.7. The allowed outage 
times proposed for degraded or inoperable 161 KV circuits are the 
same as those that currently exist for EDG inoperability. If an EDG 
were inoperable coincident with a loss of the 161 KV offsite source, 
the remaining EDG would still be operable for providing power to 
safeguards loads in the event of an accident, consistent with 
current analytical assumptions. No new failure mechanisms would be 
created.
    The proposed change to the AOT for inoperability of auxiliary 
transformers (powered from the 345 KV offsite source) from 24 to 72 
hours does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident since no new design function is established for the power 
supply already assumed to be unavailable. The 345 KV source of power 
is not credited in any design basis event. No new failure mechanism 
is created by increasing the allowed outage time from 24 to 72 
hours.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to remove the allowance for unlimited plant 
operation in the event of a degraded or inoperable 161 KV source 
does not adversely impact any margins of safety since no design 
basis function of the affected systems are changed. In the future, 
the length of time that the preferred source of offsite power is 
inoperable could be reduced which would potentially enhance plant 
safety margins by increasing the likelihood that diverse sources of 
power are available during a design basis event. Furthermore, 
sources of power credited for design basis events are not affected 
by this change.
    The proposed change to remove the requirement to verify diesel 
generator operability by ensuring that relevant surveillances have 
been performed in the event of a degraded or inoperable 161 KV 
source will not adversely impact margins of safety since the 
requirement to verify EDG operability exists in TS 3.7. Further, the 
proposed change does not change the design function of any equipment 
assumed to operate in the event of an accident.
    The proposed change to the AOT time for inoperability of 
auxiliary transformers (powered from the 345 KV offsite source) from 
24 to 72 hours does not adversely impact any margins of safety since 
the offsite power source associated with the 345 KV system is not 
credited in any design basis event. In any case, no design functions 
of plant equipment will be modified by this proposed 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 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 
K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

[[Page 6668]]

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

    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the TS 5.5.7 Ventilation Filter Testing Program to eliminate the 
requirement to test the power output of the Standby Gas Treatment 
System's (SGTS) electric heater and to raise the testing requirement 
for the relative humidity of the charcoal adsorbed air stream. Also, a 
surveillance requirement is being revised to eliminate reference to the 
heater and to shorten the required SGTS run time. 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 SGTS ensures that radioactivity leaking into the secondary 
containment from design basis accidents is treated and filtered 
before being released to the environment. This TS amendment request 
does not require or otherwise propose any physical changes to any 
system intended for the prevention of accidents or intended for the 
mitigation of accident consequences including the SGTS system. 
Neither does it involve any changes to the operation or maintenance 
of the SGTS system, or to any other system designed for the 
prevention or mitigation of design basis accidents. This proposed TS 
change involves the elimination of the SGTS electric heater testing 
requirements and its concomitant increase in the testing criteria 
for relative humidity (RH). However, the percent penetration through 
the carbon bed when challenged with methyl iodide during laboratory 
testing will not change as a result of this amendment. Therefore, 
the carbon efficiency will not be decreased as a result of this 
amendment. With respect to the reduction of the run time requirement 
for SR 3.6.4.3.1, the proposed run time is adequate to ensure proper 
operation of the SGTS.
    For the above reasons, this TS amendment request will not result 
in a significant increase in the probability of occurrence, or the 
consequences, of a previously evaluated event.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No
    This proposed Unit 1 and 2 TS amendment request involves 
elimination of the testing requirements for the SGTS electric 
heater. This in turn requires that the testing criteria for the air 
stream RH be increased from their current value of 70% to 95%. 
However, no changes are being made to the way the SGTS system, or 
any other system, is operated or maintained. Changes are being made 
to how the SGTS will be surveilled, however these changes will not 
result in the system being operated outside of its design basis. 
Since no new modes of operation are introduced, the probability of 
occurrence of an event different from any previously evaluated is 
not increased.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No
    The requirements for the Unit 1 and 2 SGTS electric heater are 
being eliminated. Without the benefit of the heater, the laboratory 
testing criteria for the RH of the air stream are higher and are 
therefore being changed from 70% to 95%. The requirements on carbon 
efficiency are not being changed by this TS revision request; the 
methyl iodide penetration criteria will remain at less than 2.5%. 
The capability of the SGTS system to holdup the iodine will 
therefore remain unchanged. The proposed 15 minute run time for the 
SR 3.6.4.3 will still allow for the adequate verification of the 
proper operation of the credited SGTS components. For this reason, 
the margin of safety is not significantly reduced.
    Based on the above, Southern Nuclear concludes that the proposed 
amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under 
the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and accordingly, a 
finding of ``no significant hazards consideration'' is justified.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw, 
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: December 17, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specifications (TSs) 1.1, ``Definitions,'' and 3.4.16, 
``RCS Specific Activity,'' and Surveillance Requirements 3.4.16.1 and 
3.4.16.3. The proposed changes would replace the current TS 3.4.16 
limit on reactor coolant system (RCS) gross specific activity with a 
new limit on RCS noble gas specific activity. The noble gas specific 
activity limit would be based on a new dose equivalent Xe-133 
definition that would replace the current E Bar average disintegration 
energy definition. The availability of this TS revision was announced 
in the Federal Register on March 15, 2007 (72 FR 12217) as part of the 
consolidated line item improvement process. The licensee affirmed the 
applicability of the model no significant hazards consideration 
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 adopted by the licensee is 
presented below:
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. The 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 the Margin of Safety
    The proposed change revises the limits on noble gas radioactivity 
in the primary coolant. The proposed change

[[Page 6669]]

is consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses and will 
ensure the monitored values protect the initial assumptions in the 
safety analyses.
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the 
analysis adopted by the licensee and, based on this review, it appears 
that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
    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.

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.

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 
1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of application for amendment: January 17, 2008, as 
supplemented by letter dated February 29, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments modified the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to establish more effective and 
appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative requirements 
related to ensuring the habitability of the control room envelope (CRE) 
in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task 
Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification change traveler TSTF-448, 
Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.'' Specifically, the proposed 
amendments modified TS 3.7.11, ``Control Room Essential Filtration 
System (CREFS),'' and added new TS 5.5.17, ``Control Room Envelope 
Habitability Program,'' to TS Administrative Controls Section 5.5, 
``Programs and Manuals.''
    Date of issuance: January 23, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 1--171; Unit 2--171; Unit 3--171.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The 
amendment revised the Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR 
25036). The supplemental letter dated February 29, 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 January 23, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-
318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert 
County, Maryland

    Date of application for amendments: August 28, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments revise Technical 
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 3.7.2.1 by replacing the 
main steam isolation valve (MSIV) closure time with the phrase ``within 
limits.'' The MSIV closure time is relocated to the licensee controlled 
document that is referenced in the TS Bases. The changes are consistent 
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Technical Specification 
Task Force (TSTF)-491, Revision 2, ``Removal of Main Steam and Main 
Feedwater Valve Isolation Times from Technical Specifications.''
    Date of issuance: January 26, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 289 and 265.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69: 
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR 
58671). The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 26, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, 
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North 
Carolina

    Date of application for amendments: December 11, 2007, as 
supplemented December 18, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications sections to allow the bypass test times and 
Completion Times (CTs) for Limiting Condition for Operation (LCOs) 
3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation'' and 3.3.2, 
``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation.''
    The proposed license amendment request (LAR) adopts changes as 
described in Westinghouse Commercial Atomic Power (WCAP) topical report 
WCAP-14333-P-A, Revision 1, ``Probabilistic Risk Analysis of the 
Reactor Protection System and Engineered Safety Features Actuation 
System Test Times and Completion Times,'' issued October 1998 and 
approved by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

[[Page 6670]]

Commission (NRC) letter dated July 15, 1998. Implementation of the 
proposed changes is consistent with Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-418, Revision 2, ``RPS [Reactor Protection System] 
and ESFAS Test Times and Completion Times (WCAP-14333).'' The NRC 
approved TSTF-418, Revision 2, by letter dated April 2, 2003.
    In addition, the proposed LAR adopts changes as described in WCAP-
15376-P-A, Revision 1,``Risk-Informed Assessment of the RTS and ESFAS 
Surveillance Test Intervals and Reactor Trip Breaker Test and 
Completion Times,'' issued March 2003, as approved by NRC letter dated 
December 20, 2002. Implementation of the proposed changes is consistent 
with TSTF Traveler  TSTF-411, Revision 1, ``Surveillance Test 
Interval Extension for Components of the Reactor Protection System 
(WCAP-15376).'' The NRC approved TSTF-411, Revision 1, by letter dated 
August 30, 2002. The licensee also requested additional changes not 
specifically included in the above topical reports. These changes will 
be evaluated in a future amendment.
    Date of issuance: December 30, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 248 and 228.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: Amendments 
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 25, 2008 (73 FR 
15783). The supplement dated December 18, 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 December 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: July 21, 2008, as supplemented by letter 
dated December 11, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Unit No. 1 Technical Specification (TSs) requirements for 
inoperable snubbers by adding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 
3.0.8 and associated Bases, allowing a delay time for entering a 
supported system TSs, when the inoperability is due solely to an 
inoperable snubber, if risk is assessed and managed. The changes 
relating to the addition of LCO 3.0.8 are consistent with Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Industry/Technical Specification 
Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification (STS) change TSTF-
372, Revision 4.
    Date of issuance: January 28, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 235.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised 
the Technical Specifications/license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR 
65695). The supplemental letter dated December 11, 2008, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 28, 2009.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: January 22, 2008, as 
supplemented by letters dated August 27 and October 22, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3 requirements related to Diesel Fuel 
Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air by replacing the specific fuel oil and 
lube oil storage values with the corresponding number of days supply. 
The specific values would be relocated to a licensee-controlled 
document (i.e., the TS Bases). It also expanded the ``clear and 
bright'' test in TS 5.5.10 by allowing a water and sediment test to be 
performed to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil prior to 
addition to the storage tanks.
    Date of issuance: January 21, 2009.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 293.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: Th