[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73351-73356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-28268]


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

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 to 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 November 6, 2008 to November 19, 2008. The 
last biweekly notice was published on November 18, 2008 (73 FR 68451).

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 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

[[Page 73352]]

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, 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

[[Page 73353]]

documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 
397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].

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

    Date of amendment request: September 12, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
remove work hour guidance from the administrative controls section of 
Fermi 2 Technical Specification (TS) 5.2.2, to eliminate any potential 
conflict with the revised Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR) Section 26, Subpart I rules.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The removal of statements relating to work hour guidance will 
not remove the requirement to control work hours and manage fatigue. 
At the time the TS amendment is implemented, 10 CFR 26, Subpart I 
will have been fully implemented. The proposed change does not 
impact the physical configuration or function of the plant 
structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in which 
SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested or inspected. The 
proposed change does not impact the initiators or assumptions of 
analyzed events, nor do they impact the mitigation of accidents or 
transient events.
    This proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    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 removes references of statements relating to 
staff working hours from TS to support the implementation of Subpart 
I of 10 CFR 26. The regulations in 10 CFR 26, Subpart I supersede 
the current guidance and add conservatism to work hour controls and 
fatigue management. Work hours will continue to be controlled in 
accordance with NRC requirements. The new rule continues to allow 
for deviations from work hour controls in order to mitigate or 
prevent a condition adverse to safety or necessary to maintain the 
security of the facility. This ensures that the new rule will not 
restrict work hours at the expense of the health and safety of the 
public or plant personnel.
    The proposed change does not alter plant configuration, require 
that new plant equipment be installed, or alter assumptions made for 
accidents previously evaluated. The proposed change does not add any 
initiators, or impact the functions of plant SSCs or the manner in 
which SCCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
    Because the proposed change does not remove the station's 
requirements to control work hours, the proposed amendment does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.
    An input to maintaining the margin of safety is the control of 
work hours as a tool in managing fatigue. Fermi 2 will continue the 
fitness-for-duty and behavioral observation programs, both of which 
will be strengthened by compliance with the new rule. The proposed 
change does not involve any physical change to plant SSCs or the 
manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected. The proposed change does not involve a change to any 
safety limits, limiting safety system settings, limiting conditions 
of operation, or design parameters for any SSC. The proposed change 
does not impact any safety analysis assumptions and does not involve 
changes in initial conditions, system response times, or other 
parameters affecting an accident analysis. Therefore, this proposed 
amendment 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 no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David G. Pettinari, Legal Department, 688 
WCB, Detroit Edison Company, 2000 2nd Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226-
1279.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 9, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change modifies 
Technical Specification 3.3.6.1, ``Primary Containment Isolation 
Instrumentation,'' to lower the Group 1 Isolation Valves reactor water 
level isolation signal from Level 2 (L2) to Level 1 (L1).
    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.
    Lowering the Group 1 isolation signal does not increase the 
probability of an accident, it changes only the level at which the 
isolation valves close. Isolation of the Group 1 valves occurs in 
response to lowering RPV water level during some transient events. 
As such, the isolation of Group 1 valves on lowering water level, 
which occurs in response to transients, is not an initiator of any 
transient or accident previously evaluated. Because the isolation of 
Group 1 valves on low water level occurs in response to some 
transients and is not an initiator of a transient event, lowering 
the level at which this isolation occurs does not impact the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    During some transients, delayed closure of the Group 1 isolation 
valves will reduce the chances of SRV [safety relief valve] 
actuation following an event by allowing the main condenser to 
remain available longer, without increasing the dose consequences of 
an event. Analyses performed show that lowering of the Group 1 
isolation signal to L1 has no impact on the FSAR [final safety 
analysis report] Chapter 15 events in terms of RPV [reactor pressure 
vessel] limits, ability to maintain necessary coolant inventory, or 
fission product release. 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.
    While the proposed change is a change to the Group 1 isolation 
initiation signal, the other requirements (surveillance intervals, 
action statements, etc.) remain the same for ``Primary Containment 
Isolation Instrumentation.'' The methods used to test and determine 
operability of the instrumentation providing the low water level 
initiation for Group 1 isolation valves are unaffected by this 
change. This change does not change any equipment function, change 
the potential failure modes of any equipment, or alter any existing 
logic. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Group 1 isolation signal from L2 to 
L1 allows more energy to be released to the main condenser (and 
reduces the amount potentially added to the suppression pool) after 
a reactor scram. This allows the operations staff and the turbine 
BPVs [bypass valves] to control RPV pressure following the initial 
transient without the use of SRVs. This reduces the potential of 
additional challenges to the operations staff and plant equipment 
and therefore, reduces the probability of more risk-significant 
scrams. By removing this energy through the condenser rather than 
the suppression pool, the change requested

[[Page 73354]]

improves reactor system safety from the standpoint of reducing SRV 
challenges (and the potential for stuck open SRVs). The analyses for 
transients and accidents that involve the Group I isolation 
demonstrate that the isolation occurs on signals other than low 
water level, or that adequate core cooling capability is maintained 
so that RPV water level does not decrease below acceptable levels. 
The analyses of the impacted events demonstrate that when the Group 
1 isolation signal is lowered to L1, consequences of LOFF [loss of 
feedwater flow], LOCA [loss of coolant accident], and ATWS-LOFF 
[anticipated transient without scram--loss of feedwater flow] events 
do not result in any temperature, pressure, or water level transient 
in excess of the design criteria for the fuel, RPV, or containment. 
Therefore barrier integrity and functions are maintained. For these 
reasons, the margin of safety is not reduced for any impacted event. 
Implementation of the proposed amendment would improve the margin of 
safety, in terms of reducing the probability of risk-significant 
scrams and reducing the amount of energy required to be absorbed by 
the suppression pool for some events. 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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: September 2, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 
13.7.2.3, ``PRA Risk Categorization,'' to add a separate set of 
criteria for assessing the risk significance of the Risk Achievement 
Worth (RAW) values of common cause failures (CCFs) as part of the 
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) analysis of the risk importance of 
components.
    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 does not involve the modification of any 
plant equipment or affect basic plant operation. The proposed change 
revises the STPNOC [STP Nuclear Operating Company] method of 
assessing Risk Achievement Worth (RAW) values as part of the 
Probabilistic Risk Assessment analysis of the risk importance of 
components to be consistent with the methods used in NRC-accepted 
industry guidance document NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 00-04, 
``10 CFR 50.69 SSC [Structure, System, and Component] Categorization 
Guideline.'' The proposed change will have no impact on the design 
or function of any safety-related structures, systems or components. 
The proposed change could result in a decrease in the safety 
significance ranking of some components, with a corresponding 
decrease in special treatment for such components. However, the 
treatment of such components would still be sufficient to ensure 
their reliable operation and would not result in a significant 
increase in their failure probability.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: [No.]
    The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of 
plant equipment and does not change the method by which any safety-
related structure, system, or component performs its function. The 
proposed change revises the STPNOC method of assessing Risk 
Achievement Worth (RAW) values as part of the Probabilistic Risk 
Assessment analysis of the risk importance of components to be 
consistent with the methods used in NRC-accepted industry guidance 
document NEI 00-04, ``10 CFR 50.69 SSC Categorization Guideline.'' 
As such, no new or different types of equipment will be installed, 
and the basic operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The 
methods governing plant operation remain consistent with current 
safety analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change will 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 does not negate any existing requirement, 
and does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the 
reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety 
analysis. The proposed change revises the STPNOC method of assessing 
Risk Achievement Worth (RAW) values as part of the Probabilistic 
Risk Assessment analysis of the risk importance of components to be 
consistent with the methods used in NRC-accepted industry guidance 
document NEI 00-04, ``10 CFR 50.69 SSC Categorization Guideline.'' 
As such, there are no changes being made to safety analysis 
assumptions, safety limits or safety system settings that would 
adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

[[Page 73355]]

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].

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power 
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin

    Date of application for amendment: July 16, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Sections 
3.3.a.1.A and 3.3.a.2.A of the Kewaunee Technical Specifications to 
increase the minimum required safety injection accumulator boron 
concentration from 1,900 parts-per-million (ppm) to 2,400 ppm.
    Date of issuance: November 6, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 199.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 26, 2008 (73 FR 
50359); The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 6, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, 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: August 1, 2008, supplemented by 
letter dated September 25, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorized revision 
to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to describe a design change 
that mitigates Alloy 600 concerns in the pressurizer.
    Date of Issuance: November 10, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 364, 366, 365.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
Amendments revised the licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (73 
FR 52415); The supplement dated September 25, 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 November 10, 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: November 12, 2007, as 
supplemented by letter dated April 8, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments authorize changes 
to the licensing bases and final updated safety analysis report for the 
Catawba Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, concerning Revision 1 to 
DPC-NE-1005-P, Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4/SlMULATE-3 MOX.
    Date of issuance: November 12, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 246, 239.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments 
revised the licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 29, 2008 (73 FR 
5218). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 12, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear 
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

    Date of application for amendments: November 12, 2007, as 
supplemented by letter dated April 8, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments authorize changes 
to the licensing bases and final updated safety analysis report for the 
McGuire Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, concerning Revision 1 to 
DPC-NE-1005-P, Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4/SlMULATE-3 MOX.
    Date of issuance: November 12, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 247, 227.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9, and NPF-17: Amendments 
revised the licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 29, 2008 (73 FR 
5218). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 12, 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: November 13, 2007, supplemented 
by letter dated July 29, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments consist of removal 
of footnotes contained in the technical specifications requiring 
original plant startup data to be used as a baseline for evaluating the 
performance of the jet pumps during surveillances.
    Date of issuance: November 12, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 196 and 157.
    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: July 1, 2008 (73 FR 
37505). The supplement dated 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 NRC 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 12, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: December 20, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises (1) the 
control rod notch surveillance frequency in Section 3.1.3, ``Control 
Rod OPERABILITY,'' and (2) one example in Section 1.4, ``Frequency,'' 
to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval 
extension. These changes were done pursuant to the previously approved 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-475, 
``Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency

[[Page 73356]]

and SRM [Source Range Monitor] Insert Control Rod Action,'' Revision 1.
    Date of issuance: November 6, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 171.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 26, 2008 (73 
FR 10298). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 6, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: November 19, 2007, as 
supplemented by letter dated May 7, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments replace the current 
fixed Frequency for testing the containment spray nozzles in Technical 
Specification Surveillance Requirement 3.6.5.8 with a maintenance or 
event based Frequency.
    Date of issuance: November 6, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-190, Unit 2-179.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 18, 2007 (72 
FR 71713). The supplement dated May 7, 2008, contained clarifying 
information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding 
of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related 
evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated 
November 6, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of November 2008.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E8-28268 Filed 12-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P