[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2546-2557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-421]


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

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 December 20, 2007 to January 2, 2008. The 
last biweekly notice was published on December 31, 2007 (72 FR 74354).

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

[[Page 2547]]

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. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this 
notice, the licensee 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 for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's 
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public 
File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave 
to intervene is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing 
and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the 
Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' 
in 10 CFR part 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, http://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

[[Page 2548]]

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 
[email protected], 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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC 
technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is 
(800) 397-4209 or locally, (301) 415-4737.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance 
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting 
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such 
filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 
Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited 
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a 
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all 
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail 
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition 
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be 
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later 
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://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, http://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 [email protected].

Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: November 29, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) section 3.6.8, ``Isolation Valve 
Seal Water (IVSW) System.'' The proposed change revises Surveillance 
Requirements (SR) 3.6.8.2 and 3.6.8.6 related to IVSW tank volume and 
header flow rates. Specifically, the proposed change would clarify the 
wording of SR 3.6.8.2, and revise SR 3.6.8.6 to provide a total flow 
rate limit from all four headers in place of the individual header 
limits.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase 
in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated.
    The proposed change is related to the Isolation Valve Seal Water 
System. This is a postaccident dose mitigating system and has no 
impact on the probability of an accident occurring. The proposed 
change to SR 3.6.8.2 is a clarification that does not impact the 
system design or operation. The proposed change to SR 3.6.8.6 
revises the methodology used to establish the system flow limits, 
but maintains the same total flow limitation and consistency with 
the system design. Therefore, 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.

[[Page 2549]]

    2. The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New 
or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated.
    The proposed change does not impact the design of the system and 
does not increase the potential for a failure that would result in 
an accident of a different kind.
    Therefore, 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 previously evaluated.
    3. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction 
in the Margin of Safety.
    The proposed change does not revise the total leakage limit or 
the design requirements for the Isolation Valve Seal Water System. 
There is no impact on the capability of the containment as a fission 
product barrier.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment would 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.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC), Docket No. 50-336, Millstone 
Power Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: March 28, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.1.e to 
allow performance of testing for nozzle blockage to be based on the 
occurrence of activities that could potentially result in nozzle 
blockage rather than a fixed periodic basis. Currently, the testing for 
nozzle blockage is performed every 10 years. DNC proposes to change 
this frequency to ``following maintenance that could cause nozzle 
blockage.''
    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:

    Criterion 1:
    Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The spray nozzles and the associated containment spray system 
are designed to perform accident mitigation functions only. The 
containment spray system and associated components are not 
considered as initiators of any analyzed accidents. The proposed 
change does not modify any plant equipment. The proposed change 
modifies the frequency for performance of a surveillance test which 
does not impact any failure modes that could lead to an accident. 
The proposed frequency change does not effect the ability of the 
spray nozzles or spray system to perform its accident mitigation 
function as assumed and therefore there is no effect on the 
consequence of any accident. Verification of no blockage continues 
to be required, but now as a function of activities that could 
result in blockage rather than an arbitrary surveillance frequency. 
Based on this discussion, the proposed amendment does not increase 
the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated.

    Criterion 2:
    Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The containment spray system is not being physically modified 
and there is no impact on the capability of the system to perform 
accident mitigation functions. No system setpoints are being 
modified and no changes are being made to the method in which 
borated water is delivered to the spray nozzles. The testing 
requirements imposed by this proposed change to check for nozzle 
blockage following activities that could cause nozzle blockage do 
not introduce new failure modes for the system. The proposed 
amendment does not introduce accident initiators or malfunctions 
that would cause a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the 
proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    Criterion 3:
    Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not change or introduce any new 
setpoints at which mitigating functions are initiated. No changes to 
the design parameters of the containment spray system are being 
proposed. No changes in system operation are being proposed by this 
change that would impact an established safety margin. The proposed 
change modifies the frequency for verification of nozzle operability 
in such a way that continued high confidence exists that the 
containment spray system will continue to function as designed. 
Therefore, based on the above, the proposed amendment does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 
06385.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone 
Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: July 13, 2007, as supplemented July 13, 
September 12, November 19, December 13, and December 17, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed stretch power uprate 
(SPU) license amendment request would increase the unit's authorized 
core power level from 3,411 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,650 MWt, and 
make changes to Technical Specifications (TSs) and licensing bases as 
necessary to support operation at the stretch power level. The changes 
to TSs include the following: Definitions; TS 2.1.1.1, ``Safety 
Limits;'' TS Table 2.2-1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Trip 
Setpoints, Functional Unit 12, Reactor Coolant Flow--Low;'' TS Table 
2.2-1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Trip Setpoints, Functional 
Unit 18c, Power Range Neutron Flux, P-8;'' TS Table 2.2-1, ``Reactor 
Trip Instrumentation Trip Setpoints, Table Notations;'' TS 3/4.2.3, 
``Reactor Coolant System Flow Rate and Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Hot 
Channel Factor;'' TS 3/4.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Features Actuation 
System Instrumentation;'' TS 3/4.4.4.3, ``Pressurizer;'' TS 3/4.7.1, 
``Turbine Cycle;'' TS 3/4.7.7, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation 
System;'' TS 3/4.7.14, ``Area Temperature Monitoring;'' TS 3/4.9.13, 
``Spent Fuel Pool--Reactivity;'' TS 5.6, ``Fuel Storage Criticality;'' 
TS 6.8.4.f, ``Administrative Controls--Containment Leakage Rate Testing 
Program;'' and TS 6.9.1.6, ``Administrative Controls--Core Operating 
Limits Report.'' The changes to the licensing bases include the 
following: Safety Grade Cold Shutdown; Branch Technical Position CMEB 
9.5.1, sections 5.c.3 and 5.c.5--``Fire shutdown strategy for long-term 
steam generator inventory make-up;'' and the demineralized water 
storage tank.
    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:


[[Page 2550]]


    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The accident analyses documented in Chapter 6 and 15 of the FSAR 
[Final Safety Analysis Report] have been reanalyzed at the SPU 
[Stretch Power Uprate] conditions. For some accidents, credit has 
been taken for a number of minor modifications that will be 
installed in order to maintain analytical and operating margin. 
These minor modifications include the following:
     Installation of a Safety Injection Actuation Signal 
permissive for the charging injection isolation valves.
     Installation of an electronic filter on the T-hot 
temperature input into the Reactor Protection System and 
modification of the Over-temperature Delta T and Over-power Delta T 
reactor trip set points.
     Elimination of the automatic rod withdrawal capability 
for the rod control system.
     Installation of an automatic initiation of pressurized 
filtration mode of the Control Building ventilation system.
    Technical Specifications (TS) changes, as appropriate, have been 
proposed to reflect the implementation of these modifications. The 
revised accident analyses have been performed with current state-of-
the-art methodologies that have been generically approved by the NRC 
[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]. All restrictions and limitations of 
these methodologies, including those identified by the NRC, have 
been met in the application of these methodologies to the SPU 
accident analyses. The results of the accident analyses at SPU 
conditions together with the proposed modifications demonstrate that 
all design basis criteria are met and that the SPU does not result 
in a significant increase in the consequences of any previously 
evaluated accidents.
    Analyses have been performed for operational transients that 
have identified some changes to control system set points. These 
changes assure that the control systems will respond and limit 
challenges to the Reactor Protection System (RPS) and Emergency Core 
Cooling System (ECCS) from routine operational transients, such as 
startup and shutdown. These changes assure that there will be no 
significant increase in probability of occurrence of an accident at 
SPU conditions.
    Comprehensive evaluations of plant structures, systems and 
components (SSCs) have been performed and confirmed that all systems 
are capable of performing their intended design functions at uprated 
power conditions. Some Technical Specifications Surveillance 
Requirements have been revised to reflect SPU conditions and to 
reflect current generic TS standards. All systems will continue to 
be operated in accordance with design requirements under SPU 
conditions; therefore, no new components or system interactions have 
been identified that could lead to an increase in the probability of 
any accident previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis 
Report (FSAR).
    The radiological consequence calculations were revised to 
reflect SPU conditions and the predicted releases from the revised 
accident analyses. All results continue to meet established 
regulatory limits and there is no significant increase in 
radiological consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Detailed evaluations of the configuration, operation, and 
accident response of the SSCs under SPU conditions and the 
associated proposed TS changes have been performed to confirm that 
all SSCs will perform as designed. Analyses of transient events have 
confirmed that no transient event results in a new sequence of 
events that could lead to a new accident scenario.
    The effect of operation under SPU conditions on plant equipment 
has been evaluated. A failure modes and effect evaluation has been 
performed for the proposed new ECCS permissive for the charging 
injection valves. This has shown that the change does not create any 
new failure modes that could lead to a different kind of accident. 
Other minor plant modifications, to support implementation of SPU 
conditions, will be made to existing systems and components. These 
modifications provide added margin so that the SSCs will continue to 
perform their design function and no new safety-related equipment or 
systems will be installed which could potentially introduce new 
failure modes or accident sequences.
    Based on this analysis, it is concluded that no new accident 
scenarios, failure mechanisms or limiting single failures are 
introduced as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed TS 
changes do not have an adverse effect on any aspect of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    A comprehensive analysis was performed to support the power SPU 
program at MPS3 [Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3]. This analysis 
identified and defined the major input parameters to the Nuclear 
Steam Supply System (NSSS), reviewed NSSS design transients, and 
reviewed the capabilities of the NSSS fluid systems, NSSS/BOP 
(balance-of-plant) interfaces, and NSSS and BOP components. The 
nuclear and thermal hydraulic performance of nuclear fuel was also 
reviewed to confirm acceptable results. Only minor plant 
modifications, to support implementation of SPU conditions, will be 
made to existing systems and components. Changes in set points for 
actuation of equipment provide added margin for performing the 
required safety functions and do not adversely affect the outcome of 
any postulated accident. The analysis indicated that all NSSS and 
BOP systems and components will continue to operate within existing 
design and safety limits under SPU conditions.
    The margin of safety of the reactor coolant pressure boundary is 
maintained under SPU conditions. The design pressure of the reactor 
pressure vessel and reactor coolant system will not be challenged as 
the pressure mitigating systems were confirmed to be sufficiently 
sized to adequately control pressure under SPU conditions.
    The radiological consequences were re-calculated at SPU 
conditions for Design Bases Accidents (DBAs) previously analyzed in 
the FSAR. The analysis showed that the radiological consequences of 
DBAs continue to meet established regulatory limits at SPU 
conditions.
    The analyses supporting the SPU program have demonstrated that 
all systems and components are capable of safely operating at SPU 
conditions. All DBA acceptance criteria will continue to be met. 
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not result 
in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    Based on this review, the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, DNC determined that the amendment request 
involves no significant hazards consideration.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Waterford, CT 06141-5127.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-339, North Anna 
Power Station, Unit 2, Louisa County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: December 5, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.15, pertaining to the containment leak 
rate testing program. The TS change would permit a onetime 5-year 
exception to the 10-year frequency of the performance based leakage 
rate testing program for Type A tests, as required by Regulatory Guide 
(RG) 1.163. This one time exception to the RG 1.163 requirement would 
allow the next Type A test to be performed no later than October 9, 
2014.
    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:


[[Page 2551]]


    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed extension to Type A testing cannot increase the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated since extension of 
the containment Type A testing is no a physical plant modification 
that could alter the probability of accident occurrence nor, is an 
activity or modification by itself that could lead to equipment 
failure or accident initiation.
    The proposed extension to Type A testing does not result in a 
significant increase in the consequences of an accident as 
documented in [NRC technical report designation (Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission)] NUREG-1493. The NUREG notes that very few potential 
containment leakage paths are not identified by Type B and C tests. 
It concludes that reducing the Type A testing frequency to once per 
twenty years leads to an imperceptible increase in risk.
    North Anna provides a high degree of assurance through testing 
and inspection that the containment will not degrade in a manner 
detectable only by Type A testing. The last three Type A tests 
identified containment leakage within acceptance criteria, 
indicating a very leak-tight containment. Inspections required by 
the [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] ASME Code are also 
performed in order to identify indications of containment 
degradation that could affect leak-tightness. Separately, Type B and 
C testing, required by Technical Specifications, identifies any 
containment opening from design penetrations, such as valves, that 
would otherwise be detected by a Type A test. These factors 
establish that an extension to the North Anna Type A test interval 
will not represent a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident.
    2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    The proposed revision to North Anna Technical Specifications 
adds a one-time extension to the current interval for Type A 
testing. The current test interval of ten years, based on past 
performance, will be extended on a one-time basis to fifteen years 
from the last Type A test. The proposed extension to Type A testing 
does not create the possibility of a new or different type of 
accident since there are no physical changes being made to the plant 
and there are no changes to the operation of the plant that could 
introduce a new failure.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    The proposed revision to North Anna Technical Specifications 
adds a one-time extension to the current interval for Type A 
testing. The current test interval of ten years, based on past 
performance, will be extended on a one-time basis to fifteen years 
from the last Type A test. RG 1.174 provides guidance for 
determining the risk impact of plant-specific changes to the 
licensing basis. RG 1.174 defines very small changes in risk as 
resulting in increases of [core damage frequency] CDF below 1E-6/yr 
and increases in [large early release fraction] LERF below 1E-7/yr. 
Since the Type A test does not impact CDF, the relevant criterion is 
LERF. The increase in LERF resulting from a change in the Type A 
test interval from a once-per-ten-years to a once-per-fifteen years 
is 1.58E-7/yr, based on internal events. RG 1.174 states that when 
the calculated increase in LERF is in the range of 1E-7/yr to 1E-6/
yr, applications will be considered if it can be shown that the 
total LERF is less than 1E-5/yr.
    Since the total LERF is 1.20E-6yr, the change is considered 
small and not a significant reduction in margin. Increasing the Type 
A test interval from ten to fifteen years is, therefore, considered 
non-risk significant and will not significantly reduce the margin of 
safety.
    The NUREG-1493 generic study of the effects of extending 
containment leakage testing found that a 20-year extension in Type A 
leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible increase in risk to the 
public. NUREG-1493 found that, generically, the design containment 
leakage rate contributes about 0.1 percent of the overall risk and 
that decreasing the Type A testing frequency would have a minimal 
affect on this risk since 95% of the Type A detectable leakage paths 
would already be detected by Type B and C testing. Furthermore, for 
North Anna, maintaining the containment subatmospheric [pressure] 
during plant operations further reduces the risk of any containment 
leakage path going undetected.

    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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, 
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, 
VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Evangelos C. Marinos.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 17, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 4.4, pertaining to the containment leak 
rate testing program. The TS change would permit a one-time 5-year 
exception to the 10-year frequency of the performance based leakage 
rate testing program for Type A tests, as required by Regulatory Guide 
(RG) 1.163. This one time exception to the RG 1.163 requirement would 
allow the next Type A test to be performed no later than October 26, 
2015.
    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?
    The proposed extension to Type A testing cannot increase the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated since extension of 
the containment Type A testing is not a physical plant modification 
that could alter the probability of accident occurrence nor, is an 
activity or modification by itself that could lead to equipment 
failure or accident initiation.
    The proposed extension to Type A testing does not result in a 
significant increase in the consequences of an accident as 
documented in [NRC technical report designation (Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission)] NUREG-1493. The NUREG notes that very few potential 
containment leakage paths are not identified by Type B and C tests. 
It concludes that reducing the Type A testing frequency to once per 
twenty years leads to an imperceptible increase in risk.
    Surry provides a high degree of assurance through testing and 
inspection that the containment will not degrade in a manner 
detectable only by Type A testing. The last two Type A tests 
identified containment leakage within acceptance criteria, 
indicating a very leak-tight containment. Inspections required by 
the [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] ASME Code are also 
performed in order to identify indications of containment 
degradation that could affect leak-tightness. Separately, Type B and 
C testing, required by Technical Specifications, identifies any 
containment opening from design penetrations, such as valves, that 
would otherwise be detected by a Type A test. These factors 
establish that an extension to the Surry Type A test interval will 
not represent a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident.
    2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    The proposed revision to Surry Technical Specifications adds a 
one-time extension to the current interval for Type A testing. The 
current test interval of ten years, based on past performance, will 
be extended on a one-time basis to fifteen years from the last Type 
A test. The proposed extension to Type A testing does not create the 
possibility of a new or different type of accident since there are 
no physical changes being made to the plant and there are no changes 
to the operation of the plant that could introduce a new failure.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    The proposed revision to Surry Technical Specifications adds a 
one-time extension to the current interval for Type A testing. The 
current test interval of ten years, based on past performance, will 
be extended on a one-time basis to fifteen years from the last Type 
A test. Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174 provides

[[Page 2552]]

guidance for determining the risk impact of plant-specific changes 
to the licensing basis. RG 1.174 defines small changes in risk as 
resulting in increases of [core damage frequency] CDF below 1E-5/yr 
and increases in [large early release fraction] LERF below 1E-6/yr. 
Since the Type A test does not impact CDF, the relevant criterion is 
LERF. The increase in LERF resulting from a change in the Type A 
test interval from a once-per-ten-years to a once-per-fifteen-years 
is 1.3E-7/yr, based on internal events. RG 1.174 states that when 
the calculated increase in LERF is in the range of 1E-7/yr to 1E-6/
yr, applications will be considered if it can be shown that the 
total LERF is less than 1E-6/yr. Since the total LERF is 9.8E-7/yr, 
the change is considered small and not a significant reduction in 
margin. Increasing the Type A test interval from ten to fifteen 
years is, therefore, considered non-risk significant and will not 
significantly reduce the margin of safety.
    The NUREG-1493 generic study of the effects of extending 
containment leakage testing found that a 20-year extension in Type A 
leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible increase in risk to the 
public. NUREG-1493 found that, generically, the design containment 
leakage rate contributes about 0.1 percent of the overall risk and 
that decreasing the Type A testing frequency would have a minimal 
effect on this risk since 95% of the Type A detectable leakage paths 
would already be detected by Type B and C testing. Furthermore, for 
Surry, maintaining the containment subatmospheric [pressure] during 
plant operations further reduces the risk of any containment leakage 
path going undetected.

    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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, 
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, 
VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: John Stang, Acting.

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, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, pertaining to the diesel fuel oil 
and starting air, to allow a one-time 14-day extension to the 
completion time (CT) allowed for an emergency diesel generator (EDG) 
diesel fuel storage tank taken out of service. The one-time extension 
is intended for each of the fuel oil storage tanks to permit removal of 
the current coating and recoat the storage tanks in preparation to use 
ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel oil as mandated by the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency.
    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 license amendment involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    The proposed extension of the Completion Time for the EDG fuel 
oil storage tanks does not increase the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated since extension of the Completion Time does not 
physically modify the plant in a manner that could alter the 
probability of accident occurrence, nor is it an activity or 
modification by itself that could lead to equipment failure or 
accident initiation. [The] TS currently permit this planned 
inspection and repair activity and provide the appropriate actions 
to ensure an adequate supply of fuel oil is available during the 
planned maintenance activity. Therefore, the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated is not affected by the extended 
Completion Time.
    The proposed extension of the Completion Time for the planned 
maintenance activities on the fuel oil storage tanks does not result 
in a significant increase in the consequences of an accident since 
adequate fuel oil remains available to permit EDG operation during a 
design basis accident [DBA].
    2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    The proposed revision to North Anna TS permits one-time 
extension of the current 7-day Completion Time to 14-day for each 
fuel oil storage tank for planned maintenance activities. This 
proposed extension does not create the possibility of a new or 
different type of accident since there are no physical changes being 
made to the plant and there are no changes to the operation of the 
plant that could introduce a new failure. The existing TS actions 
ensure an adequate supply of fuel oil is available prior to the 
maintenance to support EDG operation during a DBA.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    The proposed revision to North Anna Technical Specifications, 
which only permit a one-time extension to the current 7-day 
Completion Time for an inoperable fuel oil storage tank to 14 days, 
will not significantly reduce the margin of safety. RG 1.174 
provides guidance for determining the risk impact of plant-specific 
changes to the licensing basis. The average annual increases in core 
damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF) 
resulting from the extended Completion Time for planned maintenance 
activities on the fuel oil storage tanks are 5.6E-8/yr and 8.4E-10/
yr, respectively. RG 1.174 states that when the calculated increases 
in CDF and LERF are below 1E-5/yr and 1E-6/yr, respectively, 
applications will be considered when the total CDF and LERF are less 
than 1E-4/yr and 1E-5/yr, respectively. Since the total CDF and LERF 
for the proposed extended Completion Time meet these criteria for a 
permanent plant change, the change is considered small and not a 
significant reduction in margin. The one-time extension for planned 
maintenance activities on each fuel oil storage tank is, therefore, 
considered non-risk significant and will not significantly reduce 
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 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, 
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, 
VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: John Stang, Acting.

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.

[[Page 2553]]

    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, http://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 [email protected].

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendment: June 29, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the TMI-1 
technical specifications, to reflect a change to the Reactor Building 
spray system buffering agent from sodium hydroxide to trisodium 
phosphate dodecahydrate.
    Date of issuance: December 21, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
on a schedule consistent with the licensee's commitments regarding 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Generic Letter 2004-02, or within 
30 days of issuance, whichever is less.
    Amendment No.: 263.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. Amendment revised the 
license and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR 
49569). The supplements dated October 19, 2007, and November 29, 2007, 
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 original proposed no significant hazards 
determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan

    Date of application for amendment: June 12, 2007, as supplemented 
by letter dated September 11, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification 3.7.4 to add an Action Statement for two inoperable 
control center air conditioning (AC) subsystems. The new Action 
Statement allows a finite time to restore one control center AC 
subsystem to operable status and requires verification every 4 hours 
that control room temperature is maintained < 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
    Date of issuance: December 18, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 177.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72 
FR 51854).
    The supplemental letter contained clarifying information and did 
not change the initial no significant hazards consideration 
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal 
Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee 
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina

    Date of application of amendments: January 4, 2007, supplemented 
November 19, 2007.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications by removing the gaseous radioactivity monitor.
    Date of Issuance: December 19, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 359, 361, 360.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2007 (72 
FR 8802) The supplement dated November 19, 2007, 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 19, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: May 29, 2007, as supplemented by letters 
dated August 30 and September 19, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment reflects the transfer 
of Facility Operating License No. NPF-47, to the extent formerly held 
by Entergy Gulf States, Inc. (EGS) and Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOI), 
for the River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), which was approved by an 
Order dated October 26, 2007. The transfer is associated with the 
restructuring of EGS from a Texas corporation to a Louisiana limited 
liability company, Entergy Gulf States, Louisiana, LLC (EGS-LA). EOI 
will continue to operate RBS, and the proposed restructuring will not 
affect the technical or financial qualifications of EOI.
    Date of issuance: December 31, 2007.
    Effective date: At the time the transfer is completed.
    Amendment No.: 158.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 9, 2007 (72 FR 
37266). The supplements dated August 30 and September 19, 2007, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 31, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

    Date of application for amendment: April 25, 2007, as supplemented 
by letters dated June 28, August 30, September 13, October 18, and 
November 1, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment increases the 
licensed core power level 1.6 percent to 2609 megawatts thermal. This 
increase will

[[Page 2554]]

be achieved by the use of high-accuracy heat balanced instrumentation, 
including a Caldon Leading Edge Flowmeter CheckPlusTM 
ultrasonic flow measurement system, which allows for more accurate 
measurement of feedwater flow.
    Date of issuance: December 27, 2007.
    Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 228.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revises the 
Technical Specifications and Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72 
FR 51862). The supplements dated August 30, September 13, October 18, 
and November 1, 2007, 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 December 27, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: July 20, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the 
technical specification (TS) by adding an action statement for two 
inoperable control boiling chiller (CBC) subsystems. The action 
statement allows 72 hours to restore one CBC subsystem to operable 
status and requires verification once every 4 hours that control 
building temperatures are maintained to be less than 90 degrees 
Fahrenheit. The amendment is consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF) 
Change Traveler TSTF-477, Revision 3.
    Date of issuance: December 26, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 267.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (72 
FR 54472), as corrected on October 10, 2007 (72 FR 57606). The 
correction involved the misidentification of the licensee, not a 
technical issue.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 26, 2007.
    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, Oswego County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: December 14, 2006, as 
supplemented by letters dated July 17, August 1, and September 19, 
2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the accident 
source term in the design basis radiological consequence analyses in 
accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 
Section 50.67. The revised accident source term revision replaces the 
methodology that is based on Technical Information Document (TID)-
14844, ``Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor 
Sites,'' with the alternate source term methodology described in 
Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for 
Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' with the 
exception that TID-14844 will continue to be used as the radiation dose 
basis for equipment qualification and vital area access.
    Date of issuance: December 19, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
120 days.
    Amendment No.: 194.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63: Amendment revised 
the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (72 FR 
11390). The supplements dated July 17, 2007, August 1, 2007, and 
September 19, 2007, 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 December 19, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County, 
Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: June 7, 2007.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments delete section 2.G 
of Facility Operating License NFP-14 for SSES 1, which requires 
reporting of violations of the requirements in sections 2.C and 2.F of 
the facility operating license. The amendments also delete section 2.E 
of Facility Operating License NPF-22 for SSES 2, which requires 
reporting of violations of the requirements in section 2.C of the 
facility operating license. This change is in accordance with Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF-372, Revision 4.
    Date of issuance: December 18, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and to be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 244 and 222.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments 
revised the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (72 
FR 54478).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County, 
Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: June 8, 2007.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Limiting 
Condition for Operation 3.10.1, and the associated Bases, to expand its 
scope to include provisions for temperature excursions greater than 200 
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F), but less than 212 [deg]F as a consequence 
of inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, and as a consequence of 
scram time testing initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or 
hydrostatic test, while considering operational conditions to be in 
Mode 4 for SSES 1 and 2. This change is in accordance with Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission-approved Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF-484, ``Use of TS 3.10.1 for Scram Time 
Testing Activities.''
    Date of issuance: December 20, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and to be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 245 and 223.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments 
revised the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (72 
FR 54478).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a

[[Page 2555]]

Safety Evaluation dated December 20, 2007.
    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, http://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 [email protected].
    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, http://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 [email protected]. 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 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.

[[Page 2556]]

    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 
[email protected], 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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 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

[[Page 2557]]

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 
http://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.

Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: December 17, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment added a license 
condition to the Facility Operating License, for a one-time extension 
of Reactor Protection System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirement 
(SR) 3.3.1.1.8 concerning the calibration of Local Power Range 
Monitors. This license condition also includes actions to ensure 
continued compliance with the associated safety analysis and resolution 
of this condition as soon as possible. This extension will allow 
operation until Refuel Outage -14 and establishment of the necessary 
conditions following the outage to allow the calibration to be 
performed.
    Date of issuance: December 21, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to the required due date for the SR 3.3.1.1.8.
    Amendment No.: 157.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License. Public comments requested as to proposed no 
significant hazards consideration (NSHC):
    No. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding 
of emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC 
determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated December 21, 
2007.
    Attorney for licensee: Terence A. Burke, Associate General 
Council--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, 
Mississippi 39213.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of January 2008.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E8-421 Filed 1-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P