50356 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 

4While the Colorado Board found that 

Respondent’s attorney’s interpretation of the 

Medical Practice Act ‘‘was erroneous,’’ the Board’s 

Order did not cite any prior decision holding that 

Respondent’s conduct was illegal. 

controlled substances under the laws of 

the State in which he practices.’’). 

As I noted in United Prescription 

Services, shortly after the CSA’s 

enactment, the Supreme Court 

explained that ‘‘[i]n the case of a 

physician [the Act] contemplates that he 

is authorized by the State to practice 

medicine and to dispense drugs in 

connection with his professional 

practice.’’ United States v. Moore, 423 

U.S. 122, 140–41 (1975) (emphasis 

added) (quoted at 72 FR 50407). A 

controlled-substance prescription issued 

by a physician who lacks the license or 

other authority required to practice 

medicine within a State is therefore 

unlawful under the CSA. See 21 CFR 

1306.04(a) (‘‘An order purporting to be 

a prescription issued not in the usual 

course of professional treatment * * * 

is not a prescription within the meaning 

an intent of’’ the CSA); Cf. 21 CFR 

1306.03(a)(1) (‘‘A prescription for a 

controlled substance may be issued only 

by an individual practitioner who is 

* * * [a]uthorized to prescribe 

controlled substances by the jurisdiction 

in which he is licensed to practice his 

profession[.]’’). 

In the Stipulation and Final Agency 

Order, Respondent admitted that the 

prescribings to B.V. and D.V. 

constituted ‘‘prescribing * * * other 

than in the course of legitimate 

professional practice’’ under Colorado 

law. See In re Thornton, Stipulation and 

Final Agency Order, at 3. Accordingly, 

I conclude that the prescriptions 

Respondent issued to D.V. and B.V. 

were issued outside of the course of 

professional practice and thus also 

violated Federal law. See 21 CFR 

1306.04(a); Moore, 423 U.S. at 140–41; 

United Prescription Services, 72 FR at 

50407. The prescribings thus 

constituted acts which render her 

registration ‘‘inconsistent with the 

public interest.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4); see 

also id. § 823(f)(2) & (4) (directing 

consideration of registrant’s ‘‘experience 

in dispensing controlled substances’’

and compliance with applicable federal 

and state laws). 

I nonetheless conclude that it would 

be inappropriate to revoke Respondent’s 

registration. With respect to the 

allegations, the record establishes only 

two instances in which Respondent 

unlawfully prescribed controlled 

substances. Moreover, while ordinarily 

a practitioner cannot credibly claim 

ignorance of state laws prohibiting the 

unlicensed practice of medicine, United 

Prescription Services, 72 FR at 50407; 

the Colorado Board’s interpretation that 

Respondent was not within the 

exemption provided in Colo. Stat. § 12–

36–106(b)(3), and that she thus violated 

the State’s Medical Practice Act, appears 

to have been a case of first impression.4

Moreover, the Government has failed 

to show the absence of a legitimate 

doctor-patient relationship between 

Respondent and either person. 

Relatedly, there is no evidence that the 

prescriptions were written for other 

than a legitimate medical purpose. In 

short, the evidence does not remotely 

suggest that Respondent was using her 

prescription writing authority to deal 

drugs. See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 

243, 270 (2006). 

Furthermore, the Colorado Board has 

considered Respondent’s state law 

violations and concluded that they do 

not warrant the revocation of her 

medical license. Under agency 

precedent, I am not bound by the State 

Board’s recommendation. Nonetheless, 

because the only proven violations of 

the CSA are based on her having 

violated the Colorado Medical Practice 

Act’s licensing provision and were 

limited to two instances, I conclude that 

Respondent’s violations do not warrant 

the revocation or suspension of her 

registration. 

While in some instances, this Agency 

has placed restrictions on a 

practitioner’s registration, such 

restrictions must be related to what the 

Government has alleged and proved in 

any case. Notably, in this matter the 

Government has proposed no alternative 

sanction to revocation. Accordingly, the 

Order to Show Cause will be dismissed. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 

0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby order that 

the Order to Show Cause issued to Janet 

L. Thornton, D.O., be, and it hereby is, 

dismissed. 

Dated: August 18, 2008. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–19763 Filed 8–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

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- 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 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 

hearingdocket@nrc.gov, 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 NRCissued 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/sitehelp/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
50358 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 

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/applycertificates.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/esubmittals.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/esubmittals.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 firstclass 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 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

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 singlefailure-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-failureproof 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 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.’’


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
50360 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
50362 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 

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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 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 [NRCapproved] 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 NRCapproved 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 

pdr@nrc.gov. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
50364 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
50366 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 

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 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 50367 

1To 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. 

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/readingrm/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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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. 

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 

HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV, 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 NRCissued 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/sitehelp/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/applycertificates.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/esubmittals.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 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
50368 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 

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/esubmittals.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 firstclass 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 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–461] 

Amergen Energy Company; Clinton 

Power Station, Unit No. 1; Notice of 

Consideration of Approval of Transfer 

of Facility Operating License, 

Conforming Amendment, and 

Opportunity for a Hearing 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) is 

considering the issuance of an order 

under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the 

direct transfer of Facility Operating 

License No. NPF–62 for the Clinton 

Power Station, Unit No. 1 (CPS), 

currently held by AmerGen Energy 

Company (AmerGen) as owner and 

licensed operator of CPS. The transfer 

would be to Exelon Generation 

Company, LLC (Exelon Generation). The 

Commission is also considering 

amending the license for administrative 

purposes to reflect the proposed 

transfer. 

According to an application for 

approval dated June 20, 2008, filed by 

AmerGen and Exelon Generation, 

Exelon Generation would acquire 

ownership of the facility, following 

approval of the proposed license 

transfer, and would be responsible for 

the operation, maintenance and 

eventual decommissioning of CPS. 

No physical changes to the Facility or 

operational changes are being proposed 

in the application. 

The proposed amendment would 

replace references to AmerGen in the 

license with Exelon Generation, to 

reflect the proposed transfer. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, 

or any right thereunder, shall be 

transferred, directly or indirectly, 

through transfer of control of the 

license, unless the Commission shall 

give its consent in writing. The 

Commission will approve an 

application for the direct transfer of a 

license, if the Commission determines 

that the proposed transferee is qualified 

to hold the license, and that the transfer 

is otherwise consistent with applicable 

provisions of law, regulations, and 

orders issued by the Commission 

pursuant thereto. 

Before issuance of the proposed 

conforming license amendment, the 

Commission will have made findings 

required by the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended (the Act), and the 

Commission’s regulations. 

As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless 

otherwise determined by the 

Commission with regard to a specific 

application, the Commission has 

determined that any amendment to the 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES