[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50356-50368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19369]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an
operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from July 31, 2008 to August 13, 2008. The last
biweekly notice was published on August 12, 2008 (73 FR 46926).
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-
[[Page 50357]]
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 6D44, 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 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.
[[Page 50358]]
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].
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station (KPS), Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: July 7, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
allow the use of a methodology to determine the seismic loads on the
recently upgraded Auxiliary Building crane. The upgrade was to make the
crane single-failure-proof through replacement of the crane trolley,
and modification of the existing crane bridge. The proposed seismic
analysis methodology has not been approved for use at KPS, and is thus
not currently in the KPS Updated Safety Analysis Report. The proposed
methodology recognizes the inherent propensity for structures not fixed
to one another (e.g., steel wheels on steel rails) to roll if
sufficient lateral force is applied. The licensee proposed this seismic
analysis methodology for use solely on the Auxiliary Building crane
upgrade. The licensee stated that recognition of wheel rolling between
the crane trolley and bridge and their respective rails reflects the
true nature of the installed equipment and its response to horizontal
forces generated by a seismic event.
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. The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analysis and has
prepared its own as follows:
(1) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed amendment pertains solely to a nonlinear seismic
analysis method supporting the upgrade of the KPS Auxiliary Building
crane from a non-single-failure-proof design to a single-failure
proof design. Specifically, the existing crane trolley has been
replaced with a state-of-the-art design that is single-failure-
proof. The crane does not interface with operating plant equipment,
and will continue to be able to withstand a design-basis seismic
event without an uncontrolled lowering of the load. Thus, the
probability and consequences of a load drop are not increased by the
upgrade and proposed change in seismic analysis methodology.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
(2) Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed amendment pertains to an analysis method
supporting the upgrade of an existing plant component. This seismic
analysis methodology is proposed for use solely on the crane upgrade
and not for any other plant structures, systems, or components. The
design-rated load of the crane main hoist remains the same (i.e.,
125
[[Page 50359]]
tons). This load bounds the design and supporting analysis. The
auxiliary hook design rated load has been increased from 10 tons to
15 tons. The proposed amendment does not change the previously
evaluated and currently acceptable heavy load handling practices in
use at KPS. The number and types of lifts made using this crane in
support of KPS plant operations will not significantly change from
those contemplated during original plant licensing. Furthermore, the
basic operations of the crane (i.e., hoisting and horizontal travel)
will remain the same. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not
create a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The purpose of the proposed methodology is to determine the
design loads (forces and moments), accelerations, and displacements
on the crane and building support structure. These loads will
subsequently be used to perform the structural analysis of these
components to confirm that the design meets all applicable
acceptance criteria using previously approved industry codes and
standards for such analyses. If the stresses computed in the
structural components as a result of a seismic event are less than
the limits contained in these codes, the structural integrity of the
crane is maintained, and a suspended load will remain suspended
during a seismic event. Meeting these code limits maintains an
acceptable margin of safety for the individual components and the
crane as a whole. 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
its own analysis, proposes 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 Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.,
120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station (KPS), Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: July 16, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
align the Technical Specifications (TS) with the results of an
evaluation performed according to Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Advisory
Letter NSAL-07-7, ``Short-Term Recriticality During a PWR [pressurized-
water reactor] Large-Break LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident].'' NSAL-07-7
advised that the potential exists for recriticality to occur during a
large-break LOCA in the reflood stage after a LOCA. Westinghouse
determined that Kewaunee is not susceptible to the subject issue based
on the current KPS practice of maintaining safety injection (SI)
accumulator boron concentration at or above 2500 ppm. However, to
ensure that the KPS TS are conservative with respect to the results of
NSAL-07-7, the licensee proposed to raise the minimum required boron
concentration for the SI accumulators specified by the TS from the
current 1900 parts-per-million (ppm) to 2400 ppm.
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 reproduced below:
(1) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Increasing the minimum required boron concentration in the SI
accumulators does not add, delete, or modify any Kewaunee systems,
structures, or components (SSCs). The SI accumulators and their
contents are not accident initiators. Rather, they are designed for
accident mitigation. The effects of an increase in the minimum SI
accumulator boron concentration from 1900 ppm to 2400 ppm are
bounded by previous evaluations and determined to be acceptable.
Thus, the proposed increase in minimum SI accumulator boron
concentration has no adverse effect on the ability of the plant to
mitigate the effects of design[-]basis accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
(2) Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Increasing the minimum required boron concentration in the SI
accumulators does not change the design function of the SI
accumulators or the SSCs designed to deliver borated water from the
SI accumulators to the core. Increasing the minimum required boron
concentration in the SI accumulators does not create any credible
new failure mechanisms or malfunctions for plant equipment or the
nuclear fuel. The reactivity control function of the borated water
in the SI accumulators is not being changed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
An evaluation has been performed that shows that maintaining
boron concentration at a minimum of 2400 ppm is sufficient to assure
that acceptable results for design[-]basis accident analyses will be
maintained considering the reactivity of the core. Increasing the
minimum boron concentration in the Sl accumulator from 1900 ppm to a
minimum of 2400 ppm increases the margin of safety in the Kewaunee
safety analyses, since additional post-accident negative reactivity
will be available to the core. This additional negative reactivity
compensates for the potential for recriticality occurring during the
short-term reflood period during the large[-]break loss-of-coolant
accident. Additionally, the proposed new minimum boron concentration
of 2400 ppm is within the range required by current safety analyses
(i.e., 1900 ppm to 2625 ppm), and well below the currently
acceptable maximum boron concentration of 2625 ppm.
The proposed amendment does not result in altering or exceeding
a design basis or safety limit for the plant. All current fuel
design criteria will continue to be satisfied, and the safety
analysis of record, including evaluations of the radiological
consequences of design[-]basis accidents, will remain applicable.
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 determines
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 Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.,
120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would: (1)
Revise the Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirement (SR
3.1.3.2) frequency in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' (2)
clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for
the limiting condition for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, Required
Action E.2, ``Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation,'' and (3) revise
Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 ``Frequency'' to clarify the applicability
of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The licensee is
proposing to adopt the approved Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF-475, Revision 1, ``Control Rod Notch
Testing Frequency.''
[[Page 50360]]
The NRC staff issued a ``Notice of Availability of Model
Application Concerning Technical Specification Improvement To Revise
Control Rod Notch Surveillance Frequency, Clarify SRM Insert Control
Rod Action, and Clarify Frequency Example'' associated with TSTF-275,
Revision 1, in the Federal Register on November 13, 2007 (72 FR 63935).
The notice included a model safety evaluation, a model no significant
hazards consideration (NSHC) determination and a model license
amendment request, using the consolidated line item improvement
process. In its application dated June 30, 2008, the licensee affirmed
the applicability of the model NSHC determination which is presented
below:
Basis for proposed NSHC determination: As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of NSHC determination is presented
below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change generically implements TSTF-475, Revision 1,
``Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod
Action.'' TSTF-475, Revision 1 modifies NUREG-1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG-
1434 (BWR/6) STS [(Standard Technical Specifications)]. The changes:
(1) Revise TS testing frequency for surveillance requirement (SR)
3.1.3.2 in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' (2) clarify the
requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the
limiting condition for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action
E.2, ``Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation'' (NUREG-1434 only), and
(3) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 ``Frequency'' to clarify the
applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The
consequences [and probability] of an accident after adopting TSTF-475,
Revision 1 are no different than the consequences [and probability] of
an accident prior to adoption. Therefore, this change does not involve
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of
a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed
change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in
the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose
consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously analyzed.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
TSTF-475, Revision 1 will: (1) [revise the TS SR 3.1.3.2 frequency
in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' (2) clarify the requirement
to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition
for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, ``Source Range Monitoring
Instrumentation,'' and (3)] revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4
``Frequency'' to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance
test interval extension. [The GE Nuclear Energy Report, ``CRD Notching
Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,'' dated November
2006, concludes that extending the control rod notch test interval from
weekly to monthly is not expected to impact the reliability of the
scram system and that the analysis supports the decision to change the
surveillance frequency.] Therefore, the proposed changes in TSTF-475,
Revision 1 [* * *] do not involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee
and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10
CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request involves NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: Terence A. Burke, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Mohan C. Thadani.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: June 26, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise technical specification (TS) surveillance requirements (SRs)
3.8.1.7, 3.8.1.12, 3.8.1.15, and 3.8.1.20, to clarify the requirements
for the start time test performed by these SRs. The current requirement
is to have the diesel generator (DG) within the voltage and frequency
limits less than or equal to 10 seconds after the start signal. The
proposed change is to have the DG above the minimum voltage and
frequency within 10 seconds and verified to be within the voltage and
frequency limits at steady state conditions. The change is consistent
with TS Task Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change Traveler, TSTF-163,
``Minimum vs. Steady State Voltage and Frequency,'' Revision 2.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises surveillance requirements to clarify
what voltage and frequency limits are applicable during the
transient and steady state portions of the DG start testing.
The revised requirements do not affect the function of the DGs.
The DGs and their associated emergency loads are accident mitigating
features whose failure modes could not act as accident initiators or
precursors. The proposed change does not impact the physical
configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or
components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated,
maintained, modified, or inspected. The proposed change does not
impact the initiators or assumptions of analyzed events, nor does it
impact the mitigation of accidents or transient events.
The proposed change does not affect the design of the DGs, the
operational characteristics of the DGs, the interfaces between the
DGs and other plant systems, the function, or the reliability of the
DGs. Thus, the DGs will be capable of performing their accident
mitigation function and there is no impact to the radiological
consequences of any accident analysis.
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 revises surveillance requirements to clarify
what voltage and frequency limits are applicable during the
transient and steady state portions of DG testing.
The function of the DGs is not altered by this change. The
proposed change does not involve a modification to the physical
configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be
installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. The proposed change will not introduce a
[[Page 50361]]
new accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction
mechanism.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises surveillance requirements to clarify
what voltage and frequency limits are applicable during the
transient and steady state portions of DG testing.
The 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. These barriers include
the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment
system. The proposed change does not directly affect these barriers,
nor does it involve any adverse impact on the DGs which serve to
support these barriers in the event of an accident concurrent with a
loss of offsite power. The proposed change doesn't affect the DG's
capabilities to provide emergency power to plant equipment that
mitigate the consequences of the accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.
FPL Energy Seabrook LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No.
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: February 8, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes to change
the Technical Specifications to delete Surveillance Requirement
4.6.3.1, which specifies post-maintenance testing requirements for
containment isolation valves (CIVs).
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 changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment to the technical specifications, which is
consistent with NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications,
Westinghouse Plants,'' removes the surveillance requirement related
to post-maintenance testing of containment isolation valves (CIVs).
Surveillance requirements are not initiators of accidents;
consequently, the proposed change does not significantly increase
the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed
change does not alter the requirements regarding operability of
CIVs, and appropriate testing will continue to confirm the
operability of these valves following maintenance activities. The
CIVs will continue to be tested in a manner and at a frequency that
demonstrates they remain capable of performing their intended safety
function. As a result, the proposed amendment does not significantly
affect the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not introduce any new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single failures. The change does
not add new equipment to the plant, does not modify or remove
existing equipment, and does not significantly change the operation
of the plant. The ability of any operable equipment to perform its
specified safety function is unaffected by this change. Therefore,
the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
The proposed change does not alter the initial conditions or
results of any accident analyses. The operability requirements,
performance, and design of the CIVs are unchanged with this proposed
change. The CIVs will continue to meet the design bases for the
containment isolation system as described in the Seabrook Station
[updated final safety analysis report]. The proposed amendment will
minimize unnecessary testing of CIVs. Therefore, the proposed change
does 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 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, Florida Power & Light Company,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: H. Chernoff.
GPU Nuclear, Inc., Docket No. 50-320, Three Mile Island Nuclear
Station, Unit 2, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 11, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The amendment application
proposes to delete Technical Specification (TS) 6.5, ``Review and
Audit.'' Specifically, the proposed change would delete TS 6.5.1,
``Technical Review and Control'' and TS 6.5.3, ``Audits,'' which will
be implemented by the current and proposed changes to the GPU Nuclear
Post-Defueling Monitored Storage Quality Assurance Plan for Three Mile
Island Unit 2 (PDMS QAP). The proposed change would also delete TS
6.5.2, ``Independent Safety Review Function,'' with no replacement.
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?
No.
No physical changes to the TMI-2 Facility will occur as a result
of this proposed amendment. The proposed changes will not alter the
physical design or operational procedures associated with any plant
structure, system, or component. As such, the change is
administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of analyzed
events or assumed mitigation of accidents.
The proposed changes involve the deletion of several
administrative requirements from the Technical Specifications (TS).
The TS requirements involve Technical Review and Control and Audits
that are now controlled under the TMI-2 Post Defueling Monitored
Storage Quality Assurance Plan (PDMS QAP).
In accordance with the guidance provided in NRC Administrative
Letter 95-06, ``Relocation of Technical Specification Administrative
Controls related to Quality Assurance,'' the proposed changes are an
acceptable method for removing technical specification quality
assurance requirements.
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? No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature. The proposed
changes do not alter the physical design, safety limits, or safety
analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the plant.
Accordingly, the changes do not introduce any new accident
initiators, nor do they reduce or adversely affect the capabilities
of any plant structure, system, or component to perform their safety
function.
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? No.
[[Page 50362]]
The proposed changes conform to NRC regulatory guidance
regarding the content of plant Technical Specifications. The
guidance is presented in Administrative Letter 95-06 and NUREG-1430.
The relocation of these administrative requirements to the PDMS QAP
will not reduce the quality assurance commitments as accepted by the
NRC, nor reduce administrative controls essential to the safe
operation of the plant. Future changes to these administrative
requirements will be performed in accordance with NRC regulation 10
CFR 50.54(a), consistent with the guidance identified above.
Accordingly, the replacement of TS requirements by existing proposed
TMI-2 PDMS QAP requirements results in an equivalent level of
regulatory control.
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
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
NRC Branch Chief: Andrew Persinko.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: March 27, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to control
building envelope habitability in TS Section 3.7.3 Control Room
Emergency Ventilation (CREV) System, and add TS Section 5.5.13, Control
Building Envelope Habitability Program, to the Administrative Section
of the TSs. The licensee has included conforming technical changes to
the TS Bases. The proposed revision to the Bases also includes
editorial and administrative changes to reflect applicable changes to
the corresponding TS Bases, which were made to improve clarity, conform
with the latest information and references, correct factual errors, and
achieve more consistency with the standard TS NUREGs. The proposed
revision to the TSs and associated Bases is similar to TS Task Force
Traveler No. TSTF-448, Revision 3. However the references to chemical
and smoke hazards are not included in the proposed revision to TS
Section 3.7.3, TS Section 5.5.13 and TS Bases 3.7.3, as the CREV System
was not designed to protect the control room envelope (CRE) occupants
from these hazards and no toxic gas detectors are provided to initiate
a CRE isolation.
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 (NSHC) through incorporation by reference of the NSHC
determination published in the Federal Register Notice dated January
17, 2007 (73 FR 2022), which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed Technical Specification change involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency
ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to
minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE
atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents
previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency
ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency
ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident
previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify
the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to
assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency
ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological
consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that
the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the
consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed Technical Specification change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis.
The proposed change does not alter the required mitigation
capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its
functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the licensing
basis analyses of design basis accident radiological consequences to
CRE occupants. No new or different accidents result from performing
the new surveillance or following the new program. The proposed
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no
new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation.
The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions
and is consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore,
this change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed Technical Specification change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe
shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: July 10, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specification (TS) requirements consistent with
the Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-419, Revision 0, ``Revise PTLR
[Pressure and Temperature Limits Report] Definition and References in
ISTS [Improved Standard TS] 5.6.6, RCS [Reactor Coolant System] PTLR.''
The proposed change would reference only the Topical Report (TR) number
and title in TS 5.6.6, ``Reactor Coolant System (RCS) PRESSURE AND
TEMPERATURE LIMITS REPORT (PTLR).'' This would allow the use of
currently approved TRs to determine the pressure and temperature limits
in the PTLR without having to submit an amendment to the Operating
License. The change would not alter (1) the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) reviewed and approved analytical methods used to
determine the pressure and temperature limits or Low Temperature
Overpressure Protection (LTOP) System setpoints, or (2) the requirement
to use NRC-approved analytical methods to determine the limits or
setpoints.
[[Page 50363]]
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 (NSHC), 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 to reference the Topical Report number and
title do not alter the use of the analytical methods used to
determine the P/T [pressure/temperature] limits or LTOP System
setpoints that have been reviewed and approved by the NRC. This
method of referencing Topical Reports would allow the use of current
[NRC-approved] Topical Reports to support limits in the PTLR without
having to submit an amendment to the Operating License.
Implementation of revisions to Topical Reports would still receive
regulatory reviews and where required receive NRC review and
approval. The proposed changes to add ``LTOP arming'' into TS
5.6.6a. as a RCS pressure and temperature limit established and
documented in the PTLR and deletion of ``and Cold Overpressure
Mitigation System'' from TS 5.6.6b are administrative changes for
consistency. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not
alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs) from performing their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term,
containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in
evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types
or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public
radiation exposures. The proposed changes are consistent with safety
analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. 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 to reference the Topical Report number and
title do not alter the use of the analytical methods used to
determine the P/T limits or LTOP System setpoints that have been
reviewed and approved by the NRC. This method of referencing Topical
Reports would allow the use of current [NRC-approved] Topical
Reports to support limits in the PTLR without having to submit an
amendment to the Operating License. Implementation of revisions to
Topical Reports would still receive regulatory reviews and where
required receive NRC review and approval. The proposed changes to
add ``LTOP arming'' into TS 5.6.6a. as a RCS pressure and
temperature limit established and documented in the PTLR and
deletion of ``and Cold Overpressure Mitigation System'' from TS
5.6.6b are administrative changes for consistency. The changes do
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the
methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the changes
do not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any
existing requirements [except that NRC-approved TRs can be used
without an amendment]. The changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to reference the Topical Report number and
title do not alter the use of the analytical methods used to
determine the P/T limits or LTOP System setpoints that have been
reviewed and approved by the NRC. This method of referencing Topical
Reports would allow the use of current Topical Reports to support
limits in the PTLR without having to submit an amendment to the
Operating License. Implementation of revisions to Topical Reports
would still receive regulatory reviews and where required receive
NRC review and approval. The proposed changes to add ``LTOP arming''
into TS 5.6.6a. as a RCS pressure and temperature limit established
and documented in the PTLR and deletion of ``and Cold Overpressure
Mitigation System'' from TS 5.6.6b are administrative changes for
consistency. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which
safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The setpoints at which
protective actions are initiated are not altered by the proposed
changes. Sufficient equipment remains available to actuate upon
demand for the purpose of mitigating an analyzed event. Therefore,
it is concluded that this change does 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 NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief (Acting): Jack N. Donohew.
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].
[[Page 50364]]
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-
318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert
County, Maryland
Date of application for amendments: June 29, 2007, as supplemented
by letters dated March 12 and June 11, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.8, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation System
(CREVS),'' and introduce TS 5.5.17, ``Control Room Envelope
Habitability Program,'' consistent with Technical Specification Task
Force-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.''
Date of issuance: July 29, 2008.
Effective date: These license amendments are effective as of the
date of its issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days following
completion of the installation and testing of the plant modifications
described in Amendment Nos. 281 and 258 issued on August 29, 2007.
Amendment Nos.: 287, 264.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69:
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2007 (72 FR
45456)
The letters dated March 12 and June 11, 2008, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: July 17, 2007, as supplemented
by letters February 27 and July 9, 2008.
Brief Description of amendments: The amendments revise Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2 technical specifications
(TS) to adopt NRC-approved industry Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) standard TS change traveler, TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control
Room Habitability.'' This technical specification change was made
available by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on January 17, 2007
(72 FR 2022) as part of the consolidated line item improvement process.
The amendments modify the BSEP technical specification requirements
regarding control room envelope habitability in TS 3.7.3, ``Control
Room Emergency Ventilation (CREV) System,'' and TS Section 5.5,
``Programs and Manuals.''
Date of issuance: July 25, 2008.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 180
days.
Amendment Nos. 248 and 276.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments
change the technical specifications and add a license condition.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: (73 FR 29161). The
supplemental letters dated February 27 and July 9, 2008, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423,
Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, New London County,
Connecticut
Date of application for amendment: July 2, 2007, as supplemented on
May 5, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the
Technical Specification (TS) 4.0.5 to reference the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code of Operation and Maintenance of
Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code) instead of Section XI of the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code. Specifically the amendment updates the
inservice testing (IST) of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves
to reflect the requirements in the ASME OM Code. The amendment also
extends the TS Surveillance Requirement 4.0.2 25 percent time extension
to other normal and accelerated frequencies specified as 2 years or
less in the IST program. In addition, the ISI requirement in TS 4.0.5
is being removed and the reference to the ISI requirement is being
updated in the snubbers' TS surveillance frequency.
Date of issuance: July 31, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 304 and 241.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-65 and NPF-49:
Amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (72 FR
68210) The supplement dated May 5, 2008, clarified the application, did
not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did
not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Power Company LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: July 30, 2007, as supplement
May 27, 2008, and June 23, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications to allow single supply header operation of the
buried nuclear service water (RN) system piping for up to 30 days only
during preplanned maintenance of the buried RN system piping.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 243 and 237.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 26, 2008 (73
FR 10296) The supplements dated May 27, 2008, and June 23, 2008,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff(s original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the
amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: February 7, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specifications (TSs) associated with the
[[Page 50365]]
Surveillance Requirement frequency in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod
OPERABILITY,'' consistent with Revision 1 to the TS Task Force (TSTF)
Standard Technical Specification Change Document TSTF-475, ``Control
Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM [source range monitor] Insert
Control Rod Action'' (NUREG-1433).
Date of issuance: August 7, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 291.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment revised the
License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 2, 2008 (73 FR
18008). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 7, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: July 3, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The change relocates the quality
and quantity requirements associated with the emergency diesel
generator fuel oil within the Technical Specifications (TS) through the
creation of a new TS Limiting Condition for Operation and the Diesel
Fuel Oil Testing Program. In addition, two surveillance requirements
associated with periodic draining, cleaning and visual inspection of
the fuel oil storage tanks are deleted.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 216.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (72 FR
41782). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455,
Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: July 19, 2007, as supplemented
on July 7, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments will update the
requirements in the Technical Specifications (TS) 5.3.1 ``Facility
Staff Qualifications,'' or TS 6.3.1, ``Unit Staff Qualifications,''
that have been outdated based on licensed operator training programs
accredited by the National Academy for Nuclear Training Academy
Document, ACAD 00-003, Revision 1, dated April 2004, and the revised
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 55, ``Operators'
Licenses.''
Date of issuance: July 25, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 152, 152, 156, 156, 180, 228, 220, 189, 176, 265,
267, 271, 240, 235, 265.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37 and NPF-66,
NPF-62, DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-18, DPR-16, DPR-55, DPR-56, DPR-29,
DPR-30 and DPR-50: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications
and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (72 FR
68214). The supplemental letter contained clarifying information, 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 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: December 12, 2007, supplemented
by letter dated June 11, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments consist of changes
to the technical specifications of each unit regarding administrative
issues involving: (1) Index corrections; (2) removing requirements or
notes that are no longer applicable; (3) deleting references to
previously deleted requirements; (4) changing references to the
location of previously relocated information; and (5) editorial
corrections.
Date of issuance: August 5, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 192 and 153.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85. These amendments
revised the license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR
25040). The supplement dated June 11, 2008, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated August 5, 2008.
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: July 12, 2007, as supplemented
by letters dated June 19 and July 29, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the technical
specifications to adopt Technical Specifications Task Force-448,
Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.'' This technical
specifications improvement was made available by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (Commission) on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022), as
part of the consolidated line item improvement process. The amendment
also adds a license condition regarding
[[Page 50366]]
initial performance of new surveillance and assessment requirements.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2008.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 180
days.
Amendment No.: 230.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revises the
technical specifications and adds a license condition.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 20, 2008 (73 FR
29163). The supplements dated June 19 and July 29, 2008, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received:
FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No.
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: July 17, 2007, as supplemented by
letters dated October 15, 2007, and February 19, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revises the
Seabrook Technical Specifications related to control room envelope
habitability consistent with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2008.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 6 months.
Amendment No.: 119.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the
License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2007 (72 FR
62689). The supplemental letters provided clarifying information within
the scope of the original application and did not change the staff's
initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination
dated November 6, 2007 (72 FR 62689). The Commission's related
evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
July 30, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments receives: 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
[[Page 50367]]
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.
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
[[Page 50368]]
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, the 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.
Duke Power Company LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-413, Catawba Nuclear
Station, Unit 1 York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: July 14, 2008 as supplemented July 14,
2008.
Description of amendment request: The amendment approved a one-time
extension of the allowed outage time (AOT) for the 1B auxiliary
feedwater system and the 1B containment spray system from 72 hours to a
total of 9 days.
Date of issuance: July 15, 2008.
Effective date: July 15, 2008.
Amendment No.: 242.
Facility Operating License No. (NPF-35): Amendment revised the
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 July 15, 2008.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Associate General
Counsel and Managing Attorney, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 526 South
Church Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August, 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Nelson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-19369 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P