[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79928-79934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30779]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

I. Background

    Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. 
The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments 
issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the 
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an 
operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such 
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from December 4, 2008 to December 17, 2008. The 
last biweekly notice was published on December 16, 2008 (73 FR 76407).

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

[[Page 79929]]

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. 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. 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

[[Page 79930]]

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].

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

    Date of amendment request: November 13, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.5, ``Refueling Water Tank (RWT),'' for 
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), Units 1 and 3 to 
increase the minimum required RWT level indications and the 
corresponding borated water volumes in TS Figure 3.5.5-1 by 3 percent. 
In addition, the proposed amendments would incorporate editorial 
changes to TS Figure 3.5.5-1 for PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and 3 to provide 
consistent formatting of the RWT volumetric values provided in the 
Figure.
    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. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed substantive change will increase the TS RWT minimum 
water level for PVNGS[,] Units 1 and 3 by 3 percent to ensure that 
there is adequate water volume available at the containment 
recirculation sumps for the limiting small break LOCA [loss-of-
coolant accident] scenario. As detailed in Sections 2 and 3 of this 
evaluation [Arizona Public Service Company letter dated November 13, 
2008], this change ensures sufficient flood level for strainer 
submergence and ESF [engineered safety feature] pump operation.
    The RWT water volume is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated is not affected. The proposed change does not 
alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components 
from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences 
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
    The effect of the proposed changes in RWT minimum water level on 
containment flood level, equipment qualification, and containment 
sump pH remain within the limits assumed in the design and accident 
analyses. The calculated maximum containment flood level is based on 
the RWT water level associated with the bottom of the RWT overflow 
nozzle. This change does not revise the location of the RWT overflow 
nozzle and there is no change in the calculated maximum flood level. 
As a result, the proposed change has no impact on the qualification 
of equipment above the maximum containment flood level.
    The impact of the proposed change on post-LOCA sump pH was 
evaluated and found to [be] bounded by the current analysis for 
post-LOCA sump pH. In that analysis, the calculated minimum post-
LOCA sump pH is based on the maximum RWT water level associated with 
the bottom of the RWT overflow nozzle. The maximum flood level is 
not affected by this change. In addition, the change is conservative 
with respect to the calculated maximum post-LOCA sump pH since it is 
increasing the minimum required RWT volume. Specifically, the 
maximum post-LOCA sump pH is calculated based on an assumed minimum 
RWT level (to minimize sump boron concentration and required Tri-
Sodium Phosphate), since a lower assumed minimum RWT level would 
result in a higher calculated maximum pH. Thus, the current 
calculated maximum post-LOCA sump pH remains bounding for the 
proposed increase in the TS minimum RWT level.
    The proposed change does 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 change does 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 change is consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences.
    The proposed editorial TS changes are made only to ensure 
consistency in the

[[Page 79931]]

formatting of volumetric values and would not materially affect the 
intent or content of the TS. As such, the editorial changes do not 
affect the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

    2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to raise the required RWT minimum water 
level does not change a design function or operation of structures, 
systems, and components. The proposed change does not create new 
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already 
considered in the design basis. The proposed change does not involve 
a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different 
components or physical changes are involved with this change) or a 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. Finally, the 
proposed change does not alter any assumptions made in the safety 
analysis.
    The proposed editorial TS changes are made only to ensure 
consistency in the formatting of volumetric values and would not 
materially affect the intent or content of the TS. As such, the 
editorial changes do not create the possibility of an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.

    3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to raise the required RWT minimum water 
level does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are 
determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected 
by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant 
operation in a configuration outside of the design basis.
    The proposed editorial TS changes are made only to ensure 
consistency in the formatting of volumetric values and would not 
materially change the intent of the TS. As such, the editorial 
changes do not modify any margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
that review, it appears that the three 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: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
    Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam 
Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
    Date of amendment request: September 18, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment revises 
Action Statements `a' and `b' of Technical Specification 3/4.9.6, 
``Refueling Machine,'' to clarify the acceptability of placing a 
suspended fuel assembly or control element assembly (CEA) within the 
reactor vessel in a safe condition while restoring the refueling 
machine operability.
    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 clarifies an acceptable approach to 
recovering from an inoperable refueling machine, such as a computer 
failure, wherein it becomes necessary to raise the fuel assembly or 
CEA without automatic overload cut off protection in service to 
place the load in a safe condition.
    In this scenario, the refueling machine operator compensates for 
the lack of availability of an automatic overload cut off during 
raising the hoist using the key override feature to reset the 
refueling machine computer. Inspection for and assessment of 
entanglement of a fuel assembly or CEA with reactor internals or 
other fuel assemblies or CEAs and taking evaluated steps to free the 
same from entanglement precludes the potential for a fuel handling 
accident. These actions are to minimize the potential for fuel 
assembly damage so that the worst case fuel handling accident (fuel 
assembly drop) remains bounding. Therefore, there is no increase in 
the probability or consequences of the worst case 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 Technical Specification required overload cut off interlock 
is bypassed when raising a fuel assembly in key override mode. 
However, in the applicable case of raising the refueling machine 
hoist to the up limit with a fuel assembly or CEA attached, the 
refuel machine operator would manually compensate for the lack of 
availability of the automatic overload cut off. The load cell 
remains functional with a failed refueling machine computer and the 
operator can visually monitor changes in load while slowly and 
carefully raising the hoist to the up limit to reset the computer. 
The manual monitoring of load is not impacted by the criteria in NRC 
Information Notice 97-78 associated with crediting manual operator 
actions since the actions are not associated with actuating safety 
systems or mitigating an accident. The proposed changes provide 
essential clarification that allows a refuel operation to recover 
from a condition involving an inoperable refueling machine with a 
fuel assembly or CEA suspended in the reactor vessel. No new 
accident initiators are introduced by this change. The overload cut 
off will be manually compensated for by the refueling machine 
operator while resetting the computer to reestablish the automatic 
overload cut off interlock. Therefore, the proposed changes do not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The revised Technical Specification ACTION statement changes do 
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The 
changes provide an acceptable approach to recovery from an 
inoperable Refueling Machine. The changes clarify an already 
existing success path to restoring the refueling machine to service. 
The overload cut off will be manually compensated for by the 
refueling machine operator while raising or lowering the load. As 
such, the change does not impact the margin to safety. The changes 
ensure adherence to the original Bases to protect the core internals 
and pressure vessel from excessive lifting force in the event they 
are inadvertently engaged during lifting with the refueling machine 
inoperable (e.g., failed computer).

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Terence A. Burke, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, 
Mississippi 39213.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois.

    Date of amendment request: September 11, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
remove time, cycle, or modification-related items from the operating 
licenses (OLs) and technical specifications (TSs). Additionally, the 
proposed amendment corrects a typographical error

[[Page 79932]]

introduced into the TS in a previous amendment. The time, cycle, or 
modification-related items have been implemented or superseded, are no 
longer applicable, and no longer need to be maintained in their 
associated OLs or TSs.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The initial conditions and methodologies used in the accident 
analyses remain unchanged. The proposed changes do not change or 
alter the design assumptions for the systems or components used to 
mitigate the consequences of an accident. Therefore, accident 
analyses results are not changed.
    All changes proposed by EGC [Exelon Generation Company, LLC] in 
this amendment request are administrative in nature, and are 
removing one-time requirements that have been satisfied or items 
that are no longer applicable. There are no physical changes to the 
facilities, nor any changes to the station operating procedures, 
limiting conditions for operation, or limiting safety system 
settings.
    Based on the above discussion, 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.
    None of the proposed changes affect the design or operation of 
any system, structure, or component in the plant. The safety 
functions of the related structures, systems, or components are not 
changed in any manner, nor is the reliability of any structure, 
system, or component reduced by the revised surveillance or testing 
requirements. The changes do not affect the manner by which the 
facility is operated and do not change any facility design feature, 
structure, system, or component. No new or different type of 
equipment will be installed. Since there is no change to the 
facility or operating procedures, and the safety functions and 
reliability of structures, systems, or components are not affected, 
the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Based on this evaluation, the proposed changes do not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the Facility Operating Licenses and TS 
are administrative in nature and have no impact on the margin of 
safety of any of the TS. There is no impact on safety limits or 
limiting safety system settings. The changes do not affect any plant 
safety parameters or setpoints. The OLCs [Operating License 
Conditions] have been satisfied as required.
    Based on this evaluation, 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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, 
Illinois

    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2007, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 14, 2008, October 15, 2008, and December 9, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: Exelon Generation Company, LLC 
(EGC) requests an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 
and DPR-30 for Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS), Units 1 and 
2. The proposed change revises Technical Specifications (TS) 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.4.2 and SR 3.8.4.5 to establish an 
acceptance criterion to verify that total battery connector resistances 
for the 125 volts Direct Current (VDC) and 250 VDC batteries are within 
pre-established limits that ensure the batteries can perform their 
design function. The proposed incorporation of the acceptance criterion 
in SR 3.8.4.2 and SR 3.8.4.5 is conservative, as it establishes a 
restriction on total battery connector resistance which will ensure 
design functions are achievable.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:

    1 . Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The revisions of SR 3.8.4.2 and SR 3.8.4.5 to establish a total 
battery connector resistance acceptance criterion will not challenge 
the ability of the safety-related batteries to perform their safety 
function. Appropriate monitoring and maintenance will continue to be 
performed on the safety-related batteries. In addition, the safety-
related batteries are within the scope of 10 CFR 50.65, 
``Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at 
nuclear power plants,'' which will ensure the control of maintenance 
activities associated with this equipment.
    TS requirements will continue to require that the equipment be 
regularly monitored and tested. Since the proposed change does not 
alter the manner in which the batteries are operated, there is no 
significant impact on reactor operation.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the 
batteries, nor does it change the safety function of the batteries. 
The proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the 
operation of any systems or components in normal or accident 
operating conditions and no changes to existing structures, systems, 
or components.
    Therefore, these changes will not increase 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 changes revising SR 3.8.4.2 and SR 3.8.4.5 to 
establish an acceptance criterion for total battery connector 
resistance is an increase in conservatism, without a change in 
system testing methods, operation, or control. Safety-related 
batteries installed in the plant will be required to meet criteria 
more restrictive and conservative than current acceptance criteria 
and standards. The proposed change does not affect the manner in 
which the batteries are tested and maintained; therefore, there are 
no new failure mechanisms for the system.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is established through the design of the 
plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within 
which the plant is operated, and the setpoints for the actuation of 
equipment relied upon to respond to an event. The proposed change 
does not modify the safety limits or setpoints at which protective 
actions are initiated. The change is conservative and further 
ensures the availability and operability of the safety-related 
batteries. As such, sufficient DC capacity to support operation of 
mitigation equipment is enhanced, which results in an increase in 
the margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    Based on the above analysis, it appears that the three standards of 
10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the

[[Page 79933]]

requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these 
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from 
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to [email protected].

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

    Date of application for amendments: June 19, 2008.
    Brief Description of amendments: The amendments revise Limiting 
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.10.1, and the associated Bases, to 
expand its scope to include provisions for temperature excursions 
greater than 212 degrees Fahrenheit as a consequence of inservice leak 
and hydrostatic testing, and as a consequence of scram time testing 
initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or hydrostatic test, 
while considering operational conditions to be in Mode 4.
    The NRC issued a ``Notice of Availability of Model Application on 
Technical Specification Improvement to Modify Requirements Regarding 
LCO 3.10.1, Inservice Leak and Hydrostatic Testing Operation Using the 
Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process,'' associated with Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical 
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-484, Revision 0, in the Federal 
Register on October 27, 2006 (71 FR 63050).
    Date of issuance: December 9, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 249 and 277.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments 
change the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR 
58672). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 9, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian 
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3), Westchester 
County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: March 13, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the licensing 
basis for passive failures in fluid systems for IP2 and IP3 such that 
the loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) recirculation phase single passive 
failure is assumed to occur 24 hours or greater following initiation of 
a LOCA. Also, the IP2 single passive failure licensing basis for the 
component cooling water system is revised such that a passive failure 
is assumed to occur 24 hours or greater following initiation of a LOCA.
    Date of issuance: December 4, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 257 and 238.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64: The amendment 
revised the License and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 1, 2008 (73 FR 
37503). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 4, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

    Date of application for amendment: November 29, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specification (TS) requirements related to control room envelope 
habitability in TS 3.7.B.2 ``Control Room High Efficiency Air 
Filtration System (CRHEAFS)'' and TS Section 5.5 ``Administrative 
Controls--Programs and Manuals'' consistent with Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF)-448, Revision 3. The availability of TS 
improvement was announced in the Federal Register on January 17, 2007 
(72 FR 2022), including a model safety evaluation and model no 
significant hazards consideration determination, as part of the 
consolidated line item improvement process.
    Date of issuance: November 20, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 231.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the 
License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 29, 2008 (73 FR 
5218).
    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

    Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2, Ogle County, Illinois.
    Date of application for amendment: March 18, 2008.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revise the numbering

[[Page 79934]]

scheme of Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 3.3.2.6 and 3.3.2.7 for 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature 
Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' to correct inconsistencies 
introduced in previous license amendments issued by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission staff. The amendments also supersede the 120-day 
period for implementation of the changes to SRs 3.3.2.6 and 3.3.2.7, 
approved in the previous license amendments.
    Date of issuance: December 3, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: Braidwood Unit 1--154; Braidwood Unit 2--154; Byron 
Unit No. 1--159; and Byron Unit No. 2--159.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and NPF-66: 
The amendments revise the TSs and Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 17, 2008 (73 FR 
34341).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 3, 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 adds surveillance 
requirements to the Technical Specifications, Section 3.7.2, ``River 
Water Supply (RWS) System and Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),'' to require 
surveillance of the Cedar River depth to assure UHS operability.
    Date of issuance: December 3, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 272.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 17, 2008 (73 FR 
34342)
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 3, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: March 28, 2008, as supplemented 
by a letter dated August 29, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised PPL 
Susquehanna, LLC, Units 1 and 2 (PPL) Technical Specifications (TSs) 
3.8.4, ``DC Sources--Operating,'' to establish two new Conditions, A 
and B, the associated Required Actions with their completion times, and 
also, make some editorial and administrative changes.
    Date of issuance: December 11, 2008.
    Effective date: December 11, 2008.
    Amendment Nos.: 248 for Unit 1 and 227 for Unit 2.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR 
25044). The supplemental letter dated August 29, 2008, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's 
related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety 
Evaluation dated December 11, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of application for amendments: April 2, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: The proposed change revised 
Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.0, ``Design Features,'' to 
delete certain design details and descriptions included in TS 5.0 that 
are appropriately controlled by other applicable TSs, or does not meet 
the criteria of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 
50.36(c)(4) for inclusion in the TSs, and are already contained in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The change also revised the 
format of, and incorporated design descriptions into, TS 5.0 consistent 
with the content and format of NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications Westinghouse Plants''. A minor editorial change was made 
to address a previously deleted paragraph. Section 5.2, ``Containment'' 
was removed from the TSs in its entirety. The change removed the 
statement regarding how draining of the spent fuel pool in prevented 
and included a statement in the TS that would limit draining the spent 
fuel pool below a specific elevation. A previously established spent 
fuel pool storage capacity was also incorporated into the TSs.
    Date of issuance: December 10, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 262/262.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: 
Amendments changed the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 20, 2008 (73 FR 
29165). The proposed amendment was re-noticed on November 4, 2008 (73 
FR 65699). The Commission's final no significant hazards consideration 
determination and related evaluation of the amendments is contained in 
a Safety Evaluation dated December 10, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of December 2008.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-30779 Filed 12-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P