[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13021-13029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4690]


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

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 February 14, 2008 to February 27, 2008. The 
last biweekly notice was published on February 26, 2008 (73 FR 10293).

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

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

[[Page 13022]]

right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the 
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, 
or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any 
decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the 
requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the 
specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have 
litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be 
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC 
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process 
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet 
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. 
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they 
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor 
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
[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 Viewer\TM\ to 
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer\TM\ is free and is available 
at 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,

[[Page 13023]]

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].

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek), Ocean County, New Jersey

     Date of amendment request: May 16, 2007.
     Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Oyster Creek Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.A.6, ``Primary 
Containment.'' Specifically, the proposed change would revise the 
actions taken and applicability of the requirement to inert the primary 
containment atmosphere to less than 4 percent oxygen (O 2) 
concentration. Currently, the primary containment atmosphere must be 
inert within 24 hours of placing the reactor mode switch in the run 
mode and may be de-inerted 24 hours prior to a scheduled shutdown. The 
proposed revision would require the primary containment atmosphere to 
be inert within 24 hours after reaching 15 percent of rated thermal 
power and would allow the atmosphere to be de-inerted 24 hours prior to 
reducing power below 15 percent rated thermal power. Additionally, the 
proposed revision would introduce definitions for thermal power and 
rated thermal power, including changes for their consistent use within 
the TSs.
     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 changes modify the Technical Specifications (TS) by 
adding definitions of Rated Thermal Power (RTP) and Thermal Power to 
TS and adopting containment inerting and de-inerting requirements 
that are consistent with the guidance of NUREG-1433, ``Standard 
Technical Specifications--General Electric Plants, BWR/4'' (STS), 
Revision 3.1. Additionally, various TS and TS Bases pages are being 
revised to capitalize THERMAL POWER and RATED THERMAL POWER, to 
maintain consistency with typical TS format. The proposed changes 
will [require] inerting of the primary containment within 24 hours 
of exceeding 15% (RTP) during a plant startup, and [allow] de-
inerting 24 hours prior to reducing thermal power to less than 15% 
RTP during a plant shutdown. Also, a new TS condition will be added 
to identify required actions if the primary containment oxygen 
concentration increases to greater than or equal to four volume 
percent while in the RUN MODE. The proposed changes do not alter the 
physical configuration of the plant, nor do they affect any 
previously analyzed accident initiators. The [Loss of Coolant 
Accident (LOCA)] analysis assumes that a [LOCA] occurs at 100% 
power. The consequences of a LOCA at less than 15% RTP would be much 
less severe, and produce less hydrogen than a LOCA at 100% power.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes add definitions of [RTP] and Thermal Power 
to TS and adopt the STS guidance regarding containment inerting/de-
inerting requirements. Additionally, various TS and TS Bases pages 
are being revised to capitalize THERMAL POWER and RATED THERMAL 
POWER, to maintain consistency with typical TS format. The proposed 
changes introduce no new mode of plant operation and they do not 
involve any physical modification to the plant. The proposed changes 
[remain bounded by] the current [LOCA] analysis assumptions. No 
setpoints are being changed which would alter the dynamic response 
of plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure modes are 
introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes add definitions of [RTP] and Thermal Power 
to TS and adopt the [NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications--General Electric Plants, BWR/4, Revision 3.1, 
December 1, 2005] guidance regarding containment inerting/de-
inerting requirements. Additionally, various TS and TS Bases pages 
are being revised to capitalize THERMAL POWER and RATED THERMAL 
POWER, to maintain consistency with typical TS format. Adoption of 
the STS reference point operating condition of 15% RTP adds 
operational flexibility related to the performance of inspections 
and maintenance inside primary containment during plant startup and 
shutdown. Making the 24-hour time period contingent upon core 
thermal power, rather than reactor mode switch position during a 
plant startup, will enable placing the mode switch in the RUN 
position sooner. The proposed changes do not [invalidate] any 
assumptions or conclusions contained in the plant safety analyses, 
which assume that a LOCA occurs at 100% power. The current Limiting 
Condition for Operation action requirement and shutdown reference 
condition for de-inerting involve a complete reactor shutdown. 
Changing this requirement to 15% RTP, avoids the potential for an 
unnecessary plant transient.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in any margin of safety.

     The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, and with the changes noted above, it appears that the 
three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC 
staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration.
     Attorney for licensee: Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
     NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

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

     Date of amendment request: January 25, 2008.
     Description of amendment request: The proposed changes will revise 
the Technical Specifications (TS) 3.7.5, ``Main Turbine Bypass 
System,'' for River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), allowing the reactor 
operating limits to be modified, as specified in the RBS, Core 
Operating Limits Report (COLR), to compensate for the inoperability of 
the Main Turbine Bypass System (MTBS). The changes will provide an 
alternative to the existing Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) for 
the MTBS. The revised TS will require that either the MTBS be OPERABLE 
or that the Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (APLHGR), 
Minimum Critical

[[Page 13024]]

Power Ratio (MCPR), and Linear Heat Generation Rate and limits for the 
inoperable MTBS be placed in effect as specified in the COLR.
     Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The Main Turbine Bypass System (MTBS) functions to limit reactor 
pressure and power increases during certain transients postulated in 
the accident analysis. The MTBS is a mitigation function and not the 
initiator of any evaluated accident or transient. Operation with 
inoperable MTBS and compliance with the revised set of Minimum 
Critical Power Ratio (MCPR), Average Planar Linear Heat Generation 
Rate (APLHGR) and Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) operating 
limits will offset the impact of losing the MTBS function.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not create any new modes of plant or 
equipment operation. The proposed change allows the option to apply 
an additional penalty factor to the MCPR, APLHGR, and LHGR when the 
MTBS is inoperable. With the revised set of operating limits will 
offset the impact of losing the MTBS function, the margin to the 
MCPR SL and the thermal mechanical design limits are maintained. 
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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No. E>P>By establishing new restrictive APLHGR, MCPR, 
and LHGR operating limits, there are no changes to the plant design 
and safety analysis. There are no changes to the reactor core design 
instrument setpoints. The margin of safety assumed in the safety 
analysis is not affected. Applicable regulatory requirements will 
continue to be met and adequate defense-in-depth will be maintained. 
Sufficient safety margins will be maintained.
    The analytical methods used to determine the revised core 
operating limits were reviewed and approved by the NRC, and are 
described in Technical Specification 5.6.5.
    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: Terence A. Burke, Associate General 
Council--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, 
Mississippi 39213.
     NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont

     Date of amendment request: February 6, 2008.
     Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Surveillance Requirements (SRs) for control rod exercising 
from weekly to monthly in Technical Specification (TS) 4.3.A.2, revise 
verification of control rod coupling integrity as described in TS 
4.3.B.1, revise the scram insertion time Limiting Conditions for 
Operation (LCO) and SRs as described in TS 3.3.C and 4.3.C, and enhance 
TS 3.3.D and 4.3.D, the LCO and SR for Control Rod Accumulators.
     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 operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not significantly affect the design or 
fundamental operation and maintenance of the plant. Accident 
initiators or the frequency of analyzed accident events are not 
significantly affected as a result of the proposed changes; 
therefore, there will be no significant change to the probabilities 
of accidents previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not significantly alter assumptions or 
initial conditions relative to the mitigation of an accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed changes continue to ensure 
process variables, structures, systems, and components (SSCs) are 
maintained consistent with the safety analyses and licensing basis. 
The revised Technical Specifications continue to require that SSCs 
are properly maintained to ensure operability and performance of 
safety functions as assumed in the safety analyses. The design basis 
events analyzed in the safety analyses will not change significantly 
as a result of the proposed changes to the TS.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment being installed) 
and do not involve a change in the design, normal configuration or 
basic operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not introduce 
any new accident initiators. In some cases, the proposed changes 
impose different requirements; however, these new requirements are 
consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses. Where 
requirements are relocated to other licensee-controlled documents, 
adequate controls exist to ensure their proper maintenance.
    The proposed changes do not involve significant changes in the 
fundamental methods governing normal plant operation and do not 
require unusual or uncommon operator actions. The proposed changes 
provide assurance that the plant will not be operated in a mode or 
condition that violates the essential assumptions or initial 
conditions in the safety analyses and that SSCs remain capable of 
performing their intended safety functions as assumed in the same 
analyses. Consequently, the response of the plant and the plant 
operator to postulated events will not be significantly different.
    Therefore, the proposed TS change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following an accident situation. The proposed changes do 
not significantly affect any of the assumptions, initial conditions 
or inputs to the safety analyses. Plant design is unaffected by 
these proposed changes and will continue to provide adequate 
defense-in-depth and diversity of safety functions as assumed in the 
safety analyses.
    There are no proposed changes to any of the Safety Limits or 
Limiting Safety System Setting requirements. The proposed changes 
maintain requirements consistent with safety analyses assumptions 
and the licensing basis. Fission product barriers will continue to 
meet their design capabilities without any significant impact to 
their ability to maintain parameters within acceptable limits. The 
safety functions are maintained within acceptable limits without any 
significant decrease in capability.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the

[[Page 13025]]

amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
     Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.
     NRC Branch Chief: Mark G. Kowal.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie 
Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

     Date of amendment request: January 23, 2008.
     Description of amendment request: Replace the current St. Lucie 
Unit 2 Technical Specification pressure-temperature (P/T) limit curves 
with new P/T limit curves applicable to 55 effective full-power years 
(EFPY). The low-temperature overpressure protection (LTOP) 
requirements, which are based on the P/T limits, will also be 
applicable to 55 EFPY.
     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 have been determined in accordance with the 
methodologies set forth in the regulations to provide an adequate 
margin of safety to ensure that the reactor vessel will withstand 
the effects of normal startup and shutdown cyclic loads due to 
system temperature and pressure changes as well as the loads 
associated with reactor trips. The regulations of 10 CFR part 50 
Appendix A, Design Criterion 14 and Design Criterion 31 remains 
satisfied. The pressure-temperature (P/T) limit curves in the 
Technical Specifications are conservatively generated in accordance 
with the fracture toughness requirements of the ASME Code [American 
Society of American Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code] 
Section XI, Appendix G. The margins of safety against fracture 
provided by the P/T limits using the requirements of 10 CFR 50 
Appendix G are equivalent to those recommended in ASME Section XI, 
Appendix G. The Adjusted Reference Temperature (ART) values are 
based on the guidance of RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.99 [Reference 4].
    The proposed changes will not result in physical changes to 
structures, systems or components [(]SSCs[)] or to event initiators 
or precursors. Changing the heatup and cooldown curves and the 
pressure relief setpoints to reflect 55 EFPY does not affect the 
ability to control the RCS at low [-]temperatures such that the 
integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary would not be 
compromised by violating the P/T limits.
    The proposed changes will not impact assumptions and 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 SSCs might be more likely to fail. The initiating 
conditions and assumptions for accidents described in the UFSAR 
remain as analyzed.
    Thus, based on the above, reasonable assurance is provided 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.
    The requirements for P/T limit curves and LTOP have been in 
place since the beginning of plant operation. The revised curves are 
based on a later edition of Section XI of the ASME Code that 
incorporates current industry standards for P/T curves. The revised 
curves also are based on reactor vessel irradiation damage 
predictions using RG 1.99 methodology. No new failure modes are 
identified nor are any SSCs required to be operated outside of their 
design bases. Consequently, the proposed amendment does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of 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 P/T curves continue to maintain the safety margins 
of 10 CFR 50 Appendix G by defining the limits of operation which 
prevent nonductile failure of the reactor pressure vessel. Analyses 
have demonstrated that the fracture toughness requirements are 
satisfied and that conservative operating restrictions are 
maintained for the purpose of low [-]temperature overpressure 
protection. The P/T limit curves provide assurance that the RCS 
[reactor coolant system] pressure boundary will behave in a ductile 
manner and that the probability of a rapidly propagating fracture is 
minimized. 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.

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear 
Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota

     Date of amendment request: February 6, 2008.
     Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) in conjunction with the 
replacement of the analog power range neutron monitoring (PRNM) system 
with a more reliable digital upgrade, the General Electric--Hitachi 
Nuclear Measurement Analysis and Control (NUMAC) digital system. This 
upgrade also includes an oscillation power range monitor capability, 
which implements a detect-and-suppress long-term stability solution 
methodology. This upgrade will also simplify the management and 
maintenance of the PRNM. As a result of this design change, TS 3.3.1.1, 
``Reactor Protection System (RPS) Instrumentation;'' TS 3.3.2.1, 
``Control Rod Block Instrumentation;'' TS 3.4.1, ``Recirculation Loops 
Operating;'' and TS 5.6.3, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)'' will 
be revised.
     Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its 
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). 
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analysis, and has performed its 
own analysis as follows:
    (1) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed amendment will upgrade the existing PRNM system 
from analog to digital, and revise Technical Specification requirements 
associated with the PRNM system. The PRNM system will continue to 
perform its design functions after the upgrade and TS changes under all 
conditions of operation for which the PRNM system was designed; thus, 
there is no decrease in the functionality of the PRNM system. The 
upgrade from analog to digital is expected to improve reliability of 
the system. Whether the PRNM system is analog or digital does not have 
an impact on precursors leading to previously evaluated accidents; 
therefore, the proposed amendment does not increase the probability of 
a previously evaluated accident. The upgraded PRNM system will continue 
to carry out the PRNM design functions; therefore, the plant systems 
required to mitigate accidents will not be negatively affected by the 
upgrade of the PRNM

[[Page 13026]]

system, and will remain capable of performing their accident-mitigating 
functions. As a result, the proposed amendment will not lead to a 
significant change in the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    (2) Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed amendment would only upgrade the PRNM system from 
analog to digital, and revise associated Technical Specification 
requirements. The PRNM system was not determined to be a precursor of 
previously evaluated accidents. Its conversion from analog to digital 
would not change this status. Furthermore, other than the PRNM system, 
there will not be any physical alteration of any system, structure, or 
component (SSC) or change in the way any SSC is operated. The proposed 
amendment does not involve operation of any SSCs in a manner or 
configuration different from those previously recognized or evaluated. 
No new failure mechanisms will be introduced by the upgraded PRNM 
system and associated requirements. Thus, the proposed amendment does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    (3) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    No. The proposed amendment does not involve lowering any acceptance 
standard for the PRNM system. Also, there will be no relaxation of any 
limiting condition for operation, relaxation of assumptions for 
previously evaluated accidents, or relaxation of methodology used to 
evaluate consequences of accidents. Therefore, 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 
the NRC staff's own analysis above, it appears that the three standards 
of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards 
consideration.
     Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
     NRC Acting Branch Chief: Patrick Milano.

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, 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 Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North 
Carolina

     Date of application for amendments: August 6, 2007.
     Brief Description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical 
Specification 5.5.12, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing 
Program,'' to allow the required visual inspections to be performed in 
accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and 
Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Subsections IWL and IWE.
     Date of issuance: February 8, 2008.
     Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 
days.
     Amendment Nos.: 245 and 273.
     Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments 
change the Technical Specifications.
     Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (72 
FR 68208). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 8, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Power Company LLC, Docket No. 50-369, McGuire Nuclear Station, 
Unit 1, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

     Date of application for amendments: February 21, 2007, as 
supplemented August 9, 2007.
     Brief description of amendments: The amendment revised 
administrative TS 5.5.2, ``Containment Leak Rate Testing Program,'' 
from the currently approved 15-year interval (since the last McGuire 
Unit 1 Type A test) to a frequency encompassing the end of the McGuire 
Unit 1 End of Cycle (EOC) 19 refueling outage (approximately 6 months 
beyond the present frequency).
     Date of issuance: February 13, 2008.
     Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be 
implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance.
     Amendment No.: 244.
     Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-9: Amendments revised 
the license and the technical specifications.
     Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 31, 2007 (72 
FR 74357) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 13, 2008.
    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: June 1, 2006, supplemented by 
letters dated March 14, October 8, and October 30, 2007.
     Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorized 
revisions of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to incorporate 
the use of fiber-reinforced

[[Page 13027]]

polymer system that will be used to strengthen certain masonry walls to 
withstand the pressure loads from a tornado.
     Date of Issuance: February 21, 2008.
     Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be 
implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance.
     Amendment Nos.: 360, 362, and 361.
     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: July 18, 2006 (71 FR 
40745). The supplements dated March 14, October 8, and October 30, 
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 February 21, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Plant, 
Van Buren County, Michigan

     Date of application for amendment: August 21, 2007.
     Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications (TS) to adopt TS Task Force (TSTF) change 
traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.''
     Date of issuance: February 20, 2008.
     Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be 
implemented within 120 days.
     Amendment No.: 230.
     Facility Operating License No. DPR-20. Amendment renewed the 
Technical Specifications and Facility Operating License.
     Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2007 (72 
FR 62687). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 20, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

     Date of application for amendment: February 20, 2007, as 
supplemented by letters dated September 14, 2007, October 18, 2007 and 
December 20, 2007.
     Brief description of amendment: The amendments consist of changes 
to the Technical Specifications for each unit to allow a deferral of 
the next required Type A, containment integrated leak rate test to May 
15, 2013 (Unit 1) and to May 21, 2014 (Unit 2). The changes reflect an 
extension of the test interval for each unit from 10 to 15 years.
     Date of issuance: February 20, 2008
     Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be 
implemented within 60 days of issuance.
     Amendment Nos.: 190 and 151
     Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85. This amendment 
revised the license and the technical specifications.
     Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2007 (72 FR 
45456). The supplements dated September 14, 2007, October 18, 2007 and 
December 20, 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 February 20, 
2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 
50-412 Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver County, 
Pennsylvania

     Date of application for amendment: August 30, 2007.
     Brief description of amendment: The amendments will modify 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to control room 
envelope habitability in TS 3.7.10, ``Control Room Emergency 
Ventilation System (CREVS)'' and TS Section 5.5, ``Administrative 
Controls--Programs and Manuals.'' The changes are consistent with 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Industry/Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3. The 
availability of this TS improvement was published in the Federal 
Register on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022), as part of the consolidated 
line item improvement process.
     Date of issuance: February 15, 2008.
     Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 120 days from the date of issuance.
     Amendment No.: 281 and 163.
     Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73: The amendments 
revised the License and T.
     Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (72 
FR 65365).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 15, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comment.

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 application for amendments: June 4, 2007.
     Brief description of amendments: The amendments removed Technical 
Specification (TS) requirements related to hydrogen recombiners and 
hydrogen monitors as part of the consolidated line item improvement 
process.
     Date of Issuance: February 22, 2008.
     Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be 
implemented within 60 days of issuance.
     Amendment Nos.: 204 and 151.
     Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: 
Amendments revised the TSs.
     Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2007 (72 FR 
45457).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 22, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 
County, Wisconsin

     Date of application for amendments: July 12, 2007, as supplemented 
by letter dated October 8, 2007.
     Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification 3.6.3, ``Containment Isolation Valves.'' 
The revision would delete Surveillance Requirement 3.6.3.1, which is no 
longer required due to the containment purge supply and exhaust valve 
isolation function being replaced with blind flanges. The proposed 
amendment would also support a change to the Final Safety Analysis 
Report to revise the requirement to leak check the purge supply and 
exhaust valves.
     Date of issuance: February 19, 2008.
     Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
     Amendment Nos.: 231 and 236.
     Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: 
Amendments

[[Page 13028]]

revised the Technical Specifications/License.
     Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR 
49580). The October 8, 2007 supplement, contained clarifying 
information and did not change the staff's initial proposed finding of 
no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 19, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska

     Date of amendment request: August 10, 2007, as supplemented by 
letter dated December 20, 2007.
     Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specification 2.1.1.2 values of two recirculation loop and 
single recirculation loop safety limit minimum critical power ratio to 
reflect results of a cycle-specific calculation.
     Date of issuance: February 14, 2008.
     Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be 
implemented within 30 days of issuance.
     Amendment No.: 229.
     Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
     Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (72 
FR 54475). The supplement dated December 20, 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 February 14, 
2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (NMP2), Oswego County, New York

     Date of application for amendment: July 30, 2007, as supplemented 
by letter dated January 3, 2008.
     Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the NMP2 
Technical Specifications by changing the testing frequency for drywell 
spray nozzles specified in Surveillance Requirement 3.6.1.6.3 from ``10 
years'' to ``following maintenance that could result in nozzle 
blockage.''
     Date of issuance: February 11, 2008.
     Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented 
within 30 days.
     Amendment No.: 122.
     Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revises 
the License and Technical Specifications.
     Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72 
FR 51864).
    The supplement dated January 3, 2008, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission staff's initial proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 11, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie 
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, 
Minnesota

     Date of application for amendments: February 28, 2007.
     Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.2.2, ``Plant Staff'', and TS 5.3, ``Plant Staff 
Qualifications,'' requirements for shift technical advisor 
qualifications. The proposed changes will specify that personnel who 
perform the function of shift technical advisor (STA) shall meet the 
qualification requirements of the Commission Policy Statement on 
Engineering Expertise on Shift, published in Federal Register 50 FR 
43621, October 28, 1985. This change will allow qualified personnel to 
perform the function of STA without also holding a senior reactor 
operator (SRO) license.
     Date of issuance: February 25, 2008.
     Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be 
implemented within 90 days.
     Amendment Nos.: 184 and 174.
     Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications and Facility Operating License.
     Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 8, 2007 (72 FR 
26177). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

     Date of application for amendment: March 2, 2007, as supplemented 
on December 5, 2007.
     Brief description of amendment: The amendment adds an ACTIONS Note 
3 to the SSES 2 Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--
Operating,'' to allow a Unit 1 4160 volt subsystem to be de-energized 
and removed from service to perform bus maintenance.
     Date of issuance: February 19, 2008.
     Effective date: As of the date of issuance and to be implemented 
within 30 days.
     Amendment No.: 225.
     Facility Operating License No. NPF-22: The amendments revised the 
License and TSs.
     Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2007 (72 FR 
45459). The supplement dated December 5, 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 February 19, 2008.
    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: August 14, 2007, as 
supplemented on January 24, 2008.
     Brief description of amendments: The amendments add a new license 
condition to the SSES 1 and 2 operating licenses to permit the leakage-
boundary and containment isolation valves in Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations Part 50, Appendix J leakage test program, to be 
tested at the constant pressure power uprate (CPPU) peak containment 
internal pressure (Pa) in accordance with the current scheduled test 
intervals rather than requiring all of the valves to be tested at the 
higher Pa prior to the implementation of the CPPU.
     Date of issuance: February 20, 2008.
     Effective date: As of the date of issuance and to be implemented 
within 30 days.
     Amendment Nos.: 247 and 226.
     Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments 
revised the License.

[[Page 13029]]

     Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (72 
FR 54479). The supplement dated January 24, 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 February 20, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey

     Date of application for amendments: March 16, 2007, as 
supplemented on August 30, September 14, and November 20, 2007, and 
January 16, 2008.
     Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to modify the Salem licensing 
basis with respect to the response times associated with a steam 
generator feedwater pump (SGFP) trip and feedwater isolation valve 
(FIV) closure. The amendments also revise the Technical Specification 
(TS) requirements for the containment fan cooler unit (CFCU) cooling 
water flow rate. These changes are associated with a revised 
containment response analysis that credits an SGFP trip and FIV closure 
(on a feedwater regulator valve failure) to reduce the mass/energy 
release to the containment during a main steam line break. The 
containment analysis also credits a reduced heat removal capability for 
the CFCUs, allowing a reduction in the required service water flow to 
the CFCUs.
     Date of issuance: February 27, 2008.
     Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
prior to restart from refueling outage 1R19 for Salem Unit 1 and prior 
to restart from refueling outage 2R16 for Salem Unit 2.
     Amendment Nos.: 287 and 270.
     Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The amendments 
revise the TSs, the license and the UFSAR.
     Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 10, 2007 (72 FR 
17951). The letters dated August 30, September 14, and November 20, 
2007, and January 16, 2008, provided clarifying information that did 
not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination or expand the application beyond the scope of the 
original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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 application for amendments: October 18, 2007.
     Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications for unit staff qualifications and also 
included a revised position title for ``Health Physics 
Superintendent.''
     Date of issuance: February 21, 2008.
     Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be 
implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance.
     Amendment Nos.: 255 and 199.
     Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5: 
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
     Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (72 
FR 65372).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 21, 2008.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of February 2008.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John W. Lubinski,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E8-4690 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P