54862 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 

Total Burden Hours: 87.5. 

Total Annualized Capital/Startup 

Costs: 0. 

Total Annual Costs (Operating/ 

Maintaining Systems or Purchasing 

Services): $22,500. 

Description: ‘‘Operation 

Homecoming: Writing the Wartime 

Experience’’ presents writing workshops 

for U.S. Armed Forces active duty 

troops and veterans of both current and 

past conflicts. Workshops generally will 

last four to six weeks, and will take 

place at approximately 25 sites around 

the country, including military 

installations, veterans’ centers and 

hospitals. The NEA has entered into a 

cooperative agreement with the 

Southern Arts Federation in Atlanta, 

GA, to administer the writing 

workshops and oversee the evaluation 

process. Evaluation surveys will be 

completed by workshop participants. 

Kathleen Edwards, 

Director, Administrative Services. 

[FR Doc. E8–22153 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7536–01–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 August 28, 

2008 to September 10, 2008. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

September 9, 2008 (73 FR 52412). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 

of the facility in accordance with the 

proposed amendment would not (1) 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated; or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, 

Directives and Editing Branch, Division 

of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, and should cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 

Register notice. Written comments may 

also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two 

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 

Copies of written comments received 

may be examined at the Commission’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), located 

at One White Flint North, Public File 

Area 01F21, 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 54863 

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. 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
54864 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 

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@nrc.gov. 

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 amendments request: July 7, 

2008 

Description of amendments request: 

The proposed change would revise 

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.1.6.1 

to add a new requirement to verify that 

each vacuum breaker is closed within 6 

hours following an operation that causes 

any of the vacuum breakers to open and 

revises SR 3.6.1.6.2 by removing the 

requirement to perform functional 

testing of each vacuum breaker within 

12 hours following an operation that 

causes any of the vacuum breakers to 

open. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR Part 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not involve 

physical changes to any plant structure, 

system, or component. The suppression 

chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers only 

provide an accident mitigation function. As 

such, the probability of occurrence for a 

previously analyzed accident is not impacted 

by the change to the surveillance frequency 

for these components. 

The consequences of a previously analyzed 

accident are dependent on the initial 

conditions assumed for the analysis, the 

behavior of the fuel during the analyzed 

accident, the availability and successful 

functioning of the equipment assumed to 

operate in response to the analyzed event, 

and the setpoints at which these actions are 

initiated. No physical change to suppression 

chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers is being 

made as a result of the proposed change, nor 

does the change alter the manner in which 

the vacuum breakers operate during an 

accident. As a result, no new failure modes 

of the suppression chamber-to-drywell 

vacuum breakers are being introduced. The 

surveillance requirements for the 

suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum 

breakers will continue to ensure testing of the 

suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum 

breakers following plant transients involving 

the discharge of steam to the suppression 

chamber from the SRVs, and such testing will 

continue to provide assurance that the 

vacuum breakers are able to perform their 

design function. Based on this evaluation, 

there is no significant increase in the 

consequences of a previously analyzed event. 

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 to the surveillance 

requirements for the suppression chamber-todrywell vacuum breakers does not involve 

any physical alteration of plant systems, 

structures, or components. No new or 

different equipment is being installed. No 

installed equipment is being operated in a 

different manner. There is no alteration to the 

parameters within which the plant is 

normally operated or in the setpoints that 

initiate protective or mitigative actions. As a 

result no new failure modes are being 

introduced. Therefore, the proposed change 

to the surveillance requirements for the 

suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum 

breakers does not create the possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

3. Operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises Surveillance 

Requirement 3.6.1.6.1 to add a new 

requirement to verify each vacuum breaker is 

closed within 6 hours following an operation 

that causes any of the vacuum breakers to 

open and revises Surveillance Requirement 

3.6.1.6.2 by removing the requirement to 

perform functional testing of each vacuum 

breaker within 12 hours following an 

operation that causes any of the vacuum 

breakers to open. The operability and 

functional characteristics of the suppression 

chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers 

remains unchanged. The margin of safety is 

established through the design of the plant 

structures, systems, and components, 

through the parameters within which the 

plant is operated, through the establishment 

of the setpoints for the actuation of 

equipment relied upon to respond to an 

event, and through margins contained within 

the safety analyses. The proposed change to 

the surveillance requirements for the 

suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum 

breakers does not impact the condition or 

performance of structures, systems, setpoints, 

and components relied upon for accident 

mitigation. The proposed change to 

Surveillance Requirements 3.6.1.6.1 and 

3.6.1.6.2 will avoid unnecessary cycling and 

wear of the vacuum breaker test actuation 

mechanisms, will improve the reliability of 

the vacuum breakers, and will minimize the 

potential for a plant shut down due to a 

problem with a vacuum breaker test actuating 

mechanism from excessive wear. The 

proposed change does not impact any safety 

analysis assumptions or results. Therefore, 

the proposed change does not result in 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 proposes 

to determine that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: David T. 

Conley, Associate General Counsel II— 

Legal Department, Progress Energy 

Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 

1551, Raleigh, NC 27602. 

NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce. 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. 

Docket Nos. 50–245, 50–336, and 50– 

423, Millstone Power Station, Units 1, 2, 

and 3, New London County, Connecticut 

Date of amendment request: August 

21, 2008. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment removes 

references to and limits imposed by 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Generic 

Letter (GL) 82–12, ‘‘Nuclear Power Plant 

Staff Working Hours,’’ from the subject 

plants’’ technical specifications (TS). 

The guidelines have been superseded by 

the requirements of Title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations, Part 26 (10 CFR 

26), Subpart I, ‘‘Managing Fatigue.’’ 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The removal of references to GL 82–12 will 

not remove the requirement to control work 

hours and manage fatigue. Removal of TS 

references to GL 82–12 will be performed 

concurrently with the implementation of the 

more conservative 10 CFR 26, Subpart I, 

requirements. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 54865 

The proposed changes do not impact the 

physical configuration or function of plant 

structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or 

the manner in which SSCs are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed changes do not impact the 

initiators or assumptions of analyzed events, 

nor do they impact the mitigation of 

accidents or transient events. 

Because these new requirements are 

administrative in nature and further, are 

more conservative with respect to work hour 

controls and fatigue management, the 

proposed change will not significantly 

increase the probability or consequence of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed changes create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes remove references 

to GL 82–12 from TS consistent with the 

recently revised Subpart I to 10 CFR 26. 

These regulations are more restrictive than 

the current guidance and would add 

conservatism to work hour controls and 

fatigue management. Work hours will 

continue to be controlled in accordance with 

NRC requirements. The new rule continues 

to allow for deviations from controls to 

mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to 

safety or necessary to maintain the security 

of the facility. This ensures that the new rule 

will not restrict work hours at the expense of 

the health and safety of the public as well as 

plant personnel. 

The proposed changes do not alter plant 

configuration, require that new plant 

equipment be installed, alter assumptions 

made about accidents previously evaluated, 

add any initiators, or impact the function of 

plant SSCs or the manner in which SSCs are 

operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 

inspected. 

Because the proposed changes do not 

remove the station’s requirement to control 

work hours and increases the conservatism of 

work hour controls by changing 

administrative scheduling requirements, the 

proposed changes do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Compliance with the new rule adds 

conservatism to existing fatigue management 

and contributes to the margin of safety. 

Deletion of references to GL 82–12 in the TS 

is administrative in nature since fatigue 

management is controlled through the new 

rule. MPS1, MPS2 and MPS3 will continue 

their fitness-for-duty and behavioral 

observation programs, both of which will be 

strengthened by compliance with the new 

rule. The proposed changes add conservatism 

to fatigue management and contribute to the 

margin of safety. 

The proposed changes do not involve any 

physical changes to plant SSCs or the manner 

in which SSCs are operated, maintained, 

modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 

changes do not involve a change to any safety 

limits, limiting safety system settings, 

limiting conditions of operation, or design 

parameters for any SSC. 

The proposed changes do not impact any 

safety analysis assumptions and do not 

involve a change in initial conditions, system 

response times, or other parameters affecting 

an accident analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 

requested amendments involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. 

Chernoff. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket No. 

50–269, Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit1, 

Oconee County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: June 26, 

2008. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would result 

in a revision of the current licensing 

basis (LB) in regard to high-energy line 

break (HELB) events occurring outside 

of containment for Oconee Nuclear 

Station, Unit 1 (ONS–1). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

(1) Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Justification: The ONS–1 changes proposed 

in this LAR [license amendment request] 

include revisions to the current HELB 

methodology and mitigation strategy as 

documented in a new HELB report. This 

report provides the completed analysis for 

ONS HELBs including the descriptions of the 

station modifications that have been or will 

be made as a result of this comprehensive 

HELB reanalysis. 

The modifications associated with the 

revised HELB LB will be designed and 

installed in accordance with applicable 

quality standards such that the likelihood of 

failure of new or modified SSCs will not 

initiate failures, malfunctions, or inadvertent 

operations of existing accident mitigating 

SSCs [structures, systems, and components], 

such as the KHUs [Keowee hydro units], SSF 

[standby shutdown facility], HPI [highpressure injection], or the Central Tie 

Switchyard 100 kV alternate power systems. 

For Turbine Building HELBs that could 

adversely affect equipment needed to 

stabilize and cooldown the units, the 

addition of the PSW [protected service water] 

System provides added assurances that safe 

shutdown can be readily established and 

maintained beyond the 72-hour SSF mission 

time. 

In conclusion, the changes will collectively 

enhance the station’s overall design, safety, 

and risk margin; therefore, the proposed 

change does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequence 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. 

Justification: The proposed modifications 

address potential adverse consequences from 

a HELB outside of containment. These 

modifications will be designed and installed 

in compliance with applicable quality 

standards such that there are reasonable 

assurances that they will neither introduce 

nor cause new failure mechanisms, 

malfunctions or accident initiators not 

already considered in the current HELB 

design and licensing basis. 

The overall effect of the changes to the 

HELB LB is considered an enhancement to 

the station’s ability to achieve safe and cold 

shut down following a damaging HELB; 

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 amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Justification: The revised HELB LB will 

collectively enhance the station’s overall 

design, safety, risk margin, and the station’s 

ability to mitigate a HELB event; therefore, 

the proposed change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

Based on the above, Duke concludes that 

the proposed amendment does not involve a 

significant hazards consideration under the 

standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, 

accordingly, a finding of ‘‘no significance 

hazards consideration’’ is justified. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: 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. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 

3, Oconee County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: June 26, 

2008. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would result 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
54866 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 

in a revision to portions of the Updated 

Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 

regarding the tornado licensing basis 

(LB). 

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: 

(4) Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Justification: Although a tornado does not 

constitute a previously-evaluated UFSAR 

Chapter 15 design basis accident or transient 

as described in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2), it is a 

design basis criterion that is required to be 

considered in plant equipment design. The 

possibility of a tornado striking the ONS is 

appropriately considered in the UFSAR and 

Duke has concluded that the proposed 

changes do not increase the possibility that 

a damaging tornado will strike the site or 

increase the consequences from a damaging 

tornado. 

The modifications associated with the 

revised tornado LB will be designed and 

installed such that failures in these new or 

modified SSCs [structures, systems, and 

components will not initiate failures or 

inadvertent operations of existing ONS 

accident mitigating SSCs, such as the KHUs 

[Keowee hydro units], SSF [standby 

shutdown facility], or HPI [high-pressure 

injection] systems. The use of the NRCapproved TORMIS methodology confirmed 

that the risk from missile damage was 

acceptably low to vulnerable areas of the SSF 

structures and other SSCs required for SSD 

[safe shutdown]. As a result, there is 

reasonable assurance that a tornado missile 

will not prohibit the SSF system from 

fulfilling its tornado LB or other functions. 

Also, there are additional electrical power 

sources available which provide increased 

assurance that systems used to transition the 

units to SSD can be readily powered 

following a damaging tornado. The PSW 

[protected service water] System will provide 

additional assurance that SSD can be 

established and maintained. 

Overall, the changes proposed will 

increase assurance that potential challenges 

to the integrity of the RCS due to the effects 

of a damaging tornado will not result in a 

radioactive release to the environment. In 

conclusion, the changes will collectively 

enhance the station’s overall design, safety, 

and risk margin; therefore, the probability or 

consequences of accidents previously 

evaluated are not significantly increased. 

(5) Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Justification: Although only the SSF is 

credited for establishing and maintaining 

SSDHR [secondary side decay heat removal] 

and RCMU [reactor coolant makeup] during 

the first 72 hours following a damaging 

tornado, there are two relatively 

independent, diverse and redundant systems 

capable of safely shutting down all three 

units in the revised LB (SSF and PSW). Other 

modifications improve the ability of the SSF 

and PSW systems to perform their functions 

following a damaging tornado. The 

modifications will be designed and installed 

such that they will not introduce new failure 

mechanisms, malfunctions or accident 

initiators not already considered in the 

design and LB. 

In conclusion, the changes to the tornado 

LB will not degrade existing plant systems 

and will significantly enhance the station’s 

ability to achieve SSD following a damaging 

tornado. The design and installation of the 

PSW system will be such that there is 

reasonable assurance that the system, 

including new power paths, will not 

contribute to the possibility of new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

(6) Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Justification: The revised tornado LB will 

collectively enhance the station’s overall 

design, safety, and risk margin; therefore, the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: 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. 

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306, Prairie 

Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 

1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: June 26, 

2008, as supplemented by letters dated 

August 4 and August 26, 2008. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would make 

changes to the Technical Specifications 

that are conforming or related to a 

change in fuel type from Westinghouse 

0.400-inch OD Vantage+ fuel to 

Westinghouse 0.422-inch OD Vantage+ 

fuel. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The requested amendment is related to a 

change in the reload fuel design. The design 

criteria for the reload fuel are consistent with 

those for the existing fuel and ensure that the 

reload fuel is compatible on the basis of 

coolant flow and neutronic characteristics, as 

well as DNB and peak cladding temperature 

requirements. The reload fuel design also 

ensures mechanical compatibility with the 

existing fuel, reactor core, control rods, steam 

supply system, and fuel handling tools and 

system. 

The reactor fuel and its analysis are not 

accident initiators. Therefore, the change in 

reload fuel design does not affect accident or 

transient initiation. 

The minimum boron accumulator 

concentration is also not an accident 

initiator. The proposed change to the 

minimum accumulator boron concentration 

Technical Specification limit ensures that the 

plant will continue to operate in a manner 

that provides acceptable levels of protection 

for health and safety of the public. Further, 

all design basis accidents and transients 

affected by the fuel upgrade were re-analyzed 

or evaluated using representative core 

designs and the results for each fuel type 

show all acceptance criteria will continue to 

be met. 

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. 

Use of the 422V+ fuel is consistent with 

current plant design bases and does not 

adversely affect any fission product barrier, 

nor does it alter the safety function of safety 

significant systems, structures and 

components or their roles in accident 

prevention or mitigation. The operational 

characteristics of 422V+ fuel are bounded by 

the safety analyses * * *. The 422V+ fuel 

design performs within existing fuel design 

limits. 

The proposed change to the minimum 

accumulator boron concentration Technical 

Specification limit ensures that the plant will 

continue to operate in a manner that provides 

acceptable levels of protection for health and 

safety of the public. Further, all design basis 

accidents and transients affected by the fuel 

upgrade were re-analyzed or evaluated using 

representative core designs and the results 

for each fuel type show all acceptance 

criteria will continue to be met. 

No equipment additions or modifications 

are included with the proposed change. 

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 amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not alter the 

manner in which applicable design basis 

limits are determined, nor do they result in 

exceeding existing design basis limits. Thus, 

all licensed safety margins are maintained. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 54867 

Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, 

Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy 

Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, 

Minneapolis, MN 55401. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James. 

Southern California Edison Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 

(SONGS), Units 2 and 3, San Diego 

County, California 

Date of amendment request: June 27, 

2008. 

Description of amendment request: 

These proposed changes consist of 

Proposed Change Number 583 (PCN– 

583) and are in support of the 

replacement of the steam generators 

(SGs) at SONGS Units 2 and 3. The 

proposed changes reflect revised SG 

inspection and repair requirements, and 

revised peak containment post-accident 

pressure resulting from installation of 

the replacement SGs. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes will reflect 

installation of Replacement Steam Generators 

(RSGs) at San Onofre Nuclear Generating 

Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3. The 

proposed changes involve revising the Steam 

Generator (SG) tube inspection and repair 

[requirements] and revising the peak 

containment post-accident pressure. 

The proposed change to revise the SG tube 

inspection and repair [requirements] affect 

Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.4.17, ‘‘Steam 

Generator (SG) Tube Integrity,’’ 5.5.2.11, 

‘‘Steam Generator (SG) Program,’’ and 5.7.2.c, 

‘‘Special Reports.’’ The proposed TS 3.4.17, 

5.5.2.11, and 5.7.2.c revisions remove the 

repair method (sleeving), and Alternate 

Repair Criteria (ARC). The revisions replace 

the 44% tube repair criterion applicable to 

the original SGs, with a 35% (preliminary) 

tube repair criterion applicable to the RSGs. 

The revisions replace inspection 

requirements applicable to the tubing 

material of the original SGs with inspection 

requirements applicable to the tubing 

material of the RSGs, thus maintaining 

consistency with applicable material-specific 

regulatory guidance (TSTF–449, Revision 4). 

Overall, these revisions will ensure that all 

RSG tubes found by inservice inspection to 

contain flaws with a depth equal to or 

exceeding 35% (preliminary) of the nominal 

tube wall thickness will be plugged as 

required by revised TS 5.5.2.11.c.1. 

The TS 5.5.2.11.b SG structural integrity, 

accident induced leakage, and operational 

leakage performance criteria are unchanged 

and will continue to be met for the RSGs. 

Meeting the SG performance criteria provides 

reasonable assurance that the SG tubing will 

remain capable of maintaining reactor 

coolant pressure boundary integrity 

throughout each operating cycle and in the 

unlikely event of a design basis accident. 

The proposed change to the SG tube 

inspection and repair [requirements] will not 

affect the probability of any accident 

initiators. There will be no degradation in the 

performance of, or an increase in the number 

of challenges imposed on, safety-related 

equipment assumed to function during an 

accident. There will be no change to accident 

mitigation performance. The proposed 

change will not alter any assumptions or 

change any mitigation actions in the 

radiological consequence evaluations in the 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR). 

The proposed change to the peak 

containment post-accident pressure will 

revise TS 5.5.2.15, ‘‘Containment Leakage 

Rate Testing Program,’’ by changing the 

stated values for peak containment internal 

pressure for the design-basis Loss-of-Coolant 

Accident (LOCA) and Main Steam Line Break 

(MSLB) accidents. The current LOCA value 

of 45.9 psig would be changed to 48.0 psig 

and the current MSLB value of 56.5 psig 

would be changed to 51.5 psig. 

The proposed change does not affect the 

probability of occurrence of an accident 

previously evaluated because it relates solely 

to the consequences of hypothesized 

accidents given that the accident has already 

occurred. 

The proposed change increases the 

calculated peak containment internal 

pressure for the LOCA events from 45.9 psig 

to 48.0 psig. The revised post-LOCA peak 

containment pressure is bounded by the 

existing and revised post-MSLB peak 

containment pressure and the containment 

design pressure of 60 psig. Despite the 

increase in the post-LOCA peak containment 

pressure, any post-accident containment 

leakage will still be limited to less than 0.1% 

containment air volume per day, consistent 

with current TS 5.5.2.15. Therefore, there is 

no increase in the radiological consequences 

of a LOCA as a result of the change to the 

post-LOCA peak containment pressure. 

The post-MSLB peak containment pressure 

decreases from 56.5 psig to 51.5 psig. Thus, 

the peak containment post-accident pressure 

is decreased as a result of this change, and 

there is no resulting increase in the 

consequences of a previously evaluated 

accident. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 to the SG tube 

inspection and repair [requirements] deletes 

the repair method (sleeving) and the ARC 

applicable to the original SGs, and provides 

repair criteria and inspection requirements 

applicable to the RSGs. This will not 

introduce any adverse changes to the plant 

design basis or postulated accidents resulting 

from potential tube degradation. The 

primary-to-secondary leakage that may be 

experienced during all plant conditions will 

be monitored to ensure it remains within 

current accident analysis assumptions. The 

proposed change does not adversely affect 

the method of operation of the SGs or the 

primary or secondary coolant chemistry 

controls and does not impact other plant 

systems or components. 

The proposed change to the peak 

containment post-accident pressure relates to 

two accidents, LOCA and MSLB, which are 

already evaluated in the Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). 

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. 

For the proposed change to the SG 

inspection and repair [requirements], the 

safety function of the SGs is maintained by 

ensuring the integrity of the tubes. SG tube 

integrity is a function of the design, 

environment, and the physical condition of 

the SG tubes. The proposed change, which 

deletes the repair method (sleeving) and the 

ARC applicable to the original SGs, and 

provides repair criteria and inspection 

requirements applicable to the RSGs, does 

not adversely affect the SG tube design or 

operating environment. SG tube integrity will 

continue to be maintained by implementing 

the TS 5.5.2.11 SG Program to manage SG 

tube inspection, assessment, and plugging. 

The requirements established by the TS 

5.5.2.11 SG Program are consistent with 

those in the applicable design codes and 

standards. 

For the change to the peak containment 

post-accident pressure, the proposed change 

increases the calculated peak containment 

internal pressure for the LOCA events from 

45.9 psig to 48.0 psig. The revised post-LOCA 

peak containment pressure is bounded by the 

existing and revised post-MSLB peak 

containment pressure. The post-MSLB peak 

containment pressure decreases from 56.5 

psig to 51.5 psig. The proposed peak 

containment internal pressure for the MSLB 

accident is less than the containment design 

pressure of 60 psig and less than the 

previously calculated pressure. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

Based on the above, SCE concludes that the 

proposed amendments present no significant 

hazards consideration under the standards 

set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and accordingly, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
54868 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 

a finding of no significant hazards 

consideration is justified. 

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 requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. 

Porter, Esquire, Southern California 

Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove 

Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Southern California Edison Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, 

Units 2 and 3 (SONGS 2 and 3), San 

Diego County, California 

Date of amendment request: June 27, 

2008. 

Description of amendment request: 

SONGS Units 2 and 3 requests adoption 

of an approved change to the standard 

technical specifications (STS) for 

Combustion Engineering Pressurized 

Water Reactor (PWR) Plants (NUREG– 

1432) and plant-specific technical 

specifications (TS), to allow replacing 

the departure from nucleate boiling 

(DNB) parameter limits with references 

to the core operating limits report 

(COLR) in accordance with Generic 

Letter 88–16, ‘‘Removal of Cycle 

Specific Parameter Limits from 

Technical Specifications,’’ dated 

October 4, 1988. The changes are 

consistent with NRC approved Industry/ 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) Standard Technical 

Specification Change Traveler, TSTF– 

487, Revision 1, using the consolidated 

line-item improvement process (CLIIP). 

The NRC staff issued a notice of 

availability in the Federal Register on 

June 5, 2007 (72 FR 31108), including a 

model safety evaluation and model no 

significant hazards consideration 

(NSHC) determination, using the CLIIP 

process. The licensee affirmed the 

applicability of the model NSHC 

determination in its application dated 

June 27, 2008. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration is presented 

below: 

Criterion 1: Does the Proposed Change 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment replaces the 

limit values of the reactor coolant system 

(RCS) DNB parameters (i.e., pressurizer 

pressure, RCS cold leg temperature, and RCS 

flow rate) in TS with references to the COLR, 

in accordance with the guidance of Generic 

Letter 88–16, to allow these parameter limit 

values to be recalculated without a license 

amendment. The proposed amendment does 

not involve operation of any required 

structures, systems, or components (SSCs) in 

a manner or configuration different from 

those previously recognized or evaluated. 

The cycle-specific values in the COLR must 

be calculated using the NRC-approved 

methodologies listed in TS 5.6.3, ‘‘Core 

Operating Limits Report (COLR).’’ Replacing 

the RCS DNB parameter limits in TS with 

references to the COLR will maintain existing 

operating fuel cycle analysis requirements. 

Because these parameter limits are 

determined using the NRC approved 

methodologies, the acceptance criteria 

established for the safety analyses of various 

transients and accidents will continue to be 

met. Therefore, neither the probability nor 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated will be increased by the proposed 

change. 

Therefore, operation of the facility in 

accordance with the proposed amendment 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

preciously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: Does the Proposed Change 

Create the Possibility of a New or Different 

Kind of Accident from any Previously 

Evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment to replace the 

RCS DNB parameter limits in TS with 

references to the COLR does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant, nor a change 

or addition of a system function. The 

proposed amendment does not involve 

operation of any required SSCs in a manner 

or configuration different from those 

previously recognized or evaluated. No new 

failure mechanisms will be introduced by the 

proposed change. Therefore, the proposed 

amendment does not create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

Criterion 3: Does the Proposed Change 

Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin 

of Safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment to replace the 

RCS DNB parameter limits in TS with 

references to the COLR will continue to 

maintain the margin of safety. The DNB 

parameter limits specified in the COLR will 

be determined based on the safety analyses 

of transients and accidents, performed using 

the NRC-approved methodologies that show 

that, with appropriate measurement 

uncertainties of these parameters accounted 

for, the acceptance criteria for each of the 

analyzed transients are met. This provides 

the same margin of safety as the limit values 

currently specified in the TS. Any future 

revisions to the safety analyses that require 

prior NRC approval are identified per the 10 

CFR 50.59 review process. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment would 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. 

Porter, Esquire, Southern California 

Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove 

Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Previously Published Notices of 

Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The following notices were previously 

published as separate individual 

notices. The notice content was the 

same as above. They were published as 

individual notices either because time 

did not allow the Commission to wait 

for this biweekly notice or because the 

action involved exigent circumstances. 

They are repeated here because the 

biweekly notice lists all amendments 

issued or proposed to be issued 

involving no significant hazards 

consideration. 

For details, see the individual notice 

in the Federal Register on the day and 

page cited. This notice does not extend 

the notice period of the original notice. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50–390 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 

Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of application for amendments: 

October 26, 2007. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

proposed amendment would revise the 

Technical Specification requirements 

related to control room envelope 

habitability in accordance with the 

NRC-approved Revision 3 of Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Standard Technical Specifications 

Change Traveler TSTF–448, ‘‘Control 

Room Habitability.’’ 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in the Federal Register: August 

29, 2008 (73 FR 51014). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

September 29, 2008 (Public Comments) 

and October 28, 2008 (Requests for 

Hearing). 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 54869 

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. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, 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: 

September 27, 2007. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) TS 3.7.2, ‘‘Main 

Steam Isolation Valves,’’ and TS 3.7.3, 

‘‘Main Feedwater Isolation Valves, Main 

Feedwater Control Valves, Associated 

Bypass Valves and Tempering Valves,’’ 

by removing the specific isolation time 

for the isolation valves from the 

associated surveillance requirements. 

Date of issuance: September 8, 2008. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 244 and 238. 

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 10 

10297). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 

2008. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 13, 2008. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment replaces the current 

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2 

(ANO–2) TS 3.4.8, ‘‘RCS [reactor coolant 

system] Specific Activity,’’ limit on RCS 

gross specific activity with a new limit 

on RCS noble gas specific activity. The 

noble gas specific activity limit would 

be based on a new dose equivalent 

Xe–133 (DEX) definition that would 

replace the current E Bar average 

disintegration energy definition. In 

addition, the current dose equivalent I– 

131 (DEI) definition would be revised to 

allow the use of additional thyroid dose 

conversion factors (DCFs). This request 

adopted Technical Specification Task 

Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF–490, 

Revision 0, ‘‘Deletion of E Bar Definition 

and Revision to RCS [reactor coolant 

system] Specific Activity Technical 

Specification’’ (Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

Accession No. ML052630462), for 

pressurized water reactor Standard 

Technical Specifications (STS) for 

ANO–2. 

Date of issuance: September 8, 2008. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: Unit 2–282. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–6: Amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications and license. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR 25039). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 

2008. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of application for amendment: 

October 22, 2007, as supplemented by 

letters dated April 22, and July 8, 2008. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises Technical 

Specifications (TS) Limiting Condition 

for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4 and 

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.0.4 to 

adopt the provisions of Industry/TS 

Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF–359, 

‘‘Increased Flexibility in Mode 

Restraints.’’ This operating license 

improvement was made available by the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) on April 4, 2003, as part of the 

consolidated line item improvement 

process. The proposed TS changes also 

include an additional application of 

LCO 3.0.4.c for TS 3.4.3, ‘‘Pressurizer 

Spray Valves.’’ 

Date of issuance: August 28, 2008. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: Unit 2–281. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–6: Amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications and License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 18, 2007 (72 FR 

71710). The supplements dated April 

22, and July 8, 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 August 28, 2008. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
54870 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 

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 Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 

and 3, Grundy County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–352 and No. 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 and 

2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 

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 (TMI–1), Dauphin 

County, Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendments: 

August 8, 2007. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendment replaces references to 

Section XI of the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler 

and Pressure Vessel Code with 

references to the ASME Code for 

Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear 

Power Plants (OM Code) in the 

applicable technical specification (TS) 

section for the Inservice Testing 

Program (IST) for the Exelon Generation 

Company, LLC, and AmerGen Energy 

Company, LLC, plants that have 

implemented industry Improved 

Technical Specifications. The changes 

are based on Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF) 479, Revision 0, 

‘‘Changes to Reflect Revision of 10 CFR 

50.55a.’’ For all units except Oyster 

Creek and TMI–1, the amendments also 

incorporate TSTF–497, Revision 0, 

‘‘Limit Inservice Testing Program SR 

[Surveillance Requirement] 3.0.2 

Application to Frequencies of 2 Years or 

Less,’’ which adds a provision in the 

applicable TS section to only apply the 

extension allowance of SR 3.0.2 to the 

frequency table listed in the TS as part 

of the IST program and to normal and 

accelerated inservice testing frequencies 

of two years or less, as applicable. 

Date of issuance: August 28, 2008. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 153, 153, 157, 157, 

229, 222, 194, 155, 268, 268, 272, 241, 

236 and 266. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

72, NPF–77, NPF–37, NPF–66, DPR–19, 

DPR–25, NPF–39, NPF–85, DPR–16, 

DPR–44, DPR–56, DPR–29, DPR–30, and 

DPR–50: The amendments revised the 

Technical Specifications/Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 4, 2007 (72 FR 

68213). The Commission’s related 

evaluation of the amendments is 

contained in a Safety Evaluation dated 

August 28, 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: 

August 24, 2007, supplemented by letter 

dated June 11, 2008. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments consist of changes to the 

technical specifications of each unit, 

increasing the minimum required 

volume of fuel oil in the emergency 

diesel generator day tanks from 200 

gallons to 250 gallons. 

Date of issuance: August 27, 2008. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 193 and 154. 

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: June 20, 2008 (73 FR 35168). 

The NRC staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards determination was 

based on the supplement dated June 11, 

2008. The Commission’s related 

evaluation of the amendments is 

contained in a Safety Evaluation dated 

August 27, 2008. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 

and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, 

York and Lancaster Counties, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendments: 

July 13, 2007, as supplemented on 

February 28, 2008, March 28, 2008, 

April 17, 2008, May 23, 2008, July 29, 

2008, August 7, 2008, and August 21, 

2008. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modify the Technical 

Specifications to support application of 

Alternative Source Term (AST) 

methodology at PBAPS Units 2 and 3. 

The fission product release from the 

reactor core into containment is referred 

to as the ‘‘source term,’’ and is 

characterized by the composition and 

magnitude of the radioactive material, 

the chemical and physical properties of 

the material, and the timing of the 

release from the reactor core as 

discussed in Technical Information 

Document (TID) 14844, ‘‘Calculation of 

Distance Factors for Power and Test 

Reactor Sites.’’ Since the publication of 

TID 14844, advances have been made in 

understanding the composition and 

magnitude, chemical form, and timing 

of fission product releases from severe 

nuclear power plant accidents. In light 

of these insights, NUREG–1465, 

‘‘Accident Source Terms for Light-Water 

Nuclear Power Plants,’’ was published 

in 1995 with revised ASTs for use in the 

licensing of future light-water reactors. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC), in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Section 50.67 (10 CFR 

50.67), ‘‘Accident source term,’’ 

subsequently allowed the use of the 

ASTs described in NUREG–1465 at 

operating plants. This request to apply 

the AST methodology is made in 

accordance with 10 CFR 50.67, with the 

exception that TID 14844 will continue 

to be used as the radiation dose basis for 

equipment qualification at PBAPS Units 

2 and 3. Application of the AST 

methodology at PBAPS Units 2 and 3 

requires that radiation dose limits 

specified in 10 CFR 50.67 are adhered 

to for the exclusion area boundary, the 

low population zone outer boundary, 

and the facility control room. 

Date of issuance: September 5, 2008. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 269 and 273. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: Amendments 

revised the License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR 25040). 

The supplements dated February 28, 

2008, March 28, 2008, April 17, 2008, 

May 23, 2008, July 29, 2008, August 7, 

2008, and August 21, 2008, clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the initial proposed 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 54871 

no significant hazards consideration 

determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 5, 

2008. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket No. 50–440, 

Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, 

Lake County, Ohio 

Date of application for amendment: 

February 20, 2008. 

Brief description of amendment: This 

amendment revised an Applicability 

footnote in Technical Specification (TS) 

Table 3.3.2.1–1, ‘‘Control Rod Block 

Instrumentation,’’ to permit use of an 

improved optional Banked Position 

Withdrawal Sequence (BPWS) reactor 

shutdown process. Corresponding 

changes are in accordance with the 

Bases of TS 3.1.6, ‘‘Control Rod 

Pattern,’’ and the Bases of TS 3.3.2.1, to 

reference the new BPWS shutdown 

method. This amendment is consistent 

with Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–476–A, Revision 

1, ‘‘Improved BPWS Control Rod 

Insertion Process (NEDO–33091),’’ and 

the Consolidated Line Item 

Improvement Process Notice of 

Availability dated May 23, 2007. 

Date of issuance: August 28, 2008. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days. 

Amendment No.: 150. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

58: This amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications and License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 22, 2008 (73 FR 21659). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 28, 

2008. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NMP1), 

Oswego County, New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

September 27, 2007, as supplemented 

by letter dated June 5, 2008. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment changes the NMP1 

Technical Specifications (TSs) by 

revising the operability requirements 

contained in TS Section 3.2.7, ‘‘Reactor 

Coolant System Isolation Valves,’’ and 

associated requirements contained in TS 

Section 3.6.2, ‘‘Protective 

Instrumentation.’’ The amendment will 

modify the conditions for which reactor 

coolant system isolation valves (RCSIVs) 

and associated isolation instrumentation 

must be operable to include the hot 

shutdown reactor operating condition. 

In addition, it will be required that the 

RCSIVs in the shutdown cooling (SDC) 

system and associated isolation 

instrumentation be operable during the 

cold shutdown reactor operating 

condition and the refueling reactor 

operating condition. Lastly, TS Section 

3.6.2 (Table 3.6.2b) will be revised to 

delete unnecessary operability 

requirements for the cleanup system 

and SDC system high area temperature 

isolation instrumentation, consistent 

with the proposed revisions to the 

RCSIV operability requirements. 

Date of issuance: August 27, 2008. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance to be implemented within 90 

days. 

Amendment No.: 197. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–63: Amendment revised the 

License and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 20, 2007 (72 FR 

65367). The supplement dated June 5, 

2008, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

staff’s initial proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 27, 

2008. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, 

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Houston County, Alabama 

Date of amendment request: 

November 5, 2007, as supplemented 

April 7, 2008. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: TS Section 5.5.17, 

‘‘Containment Leakage Rate Testing 

Program,’’ is changed to resolve a timing 

conflict between the FNP, Unit 2 R20 

refueling outage schedule and the 15- 

year test date for the FNP, Unit 2 Type 

A Containment Integrated Leak Rate 

Test (ILRT). Although Unit 1 does not 

have a current timing conflict, a similar 

Unit 1 change was requested for 

consistency. The change adds 

approximately 1 month to the 

previously approved required date. 

Date of issuance: September 2, 2008. 

Effective Date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–177; Unit 

2–170. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

2 and NPF–8: The amendment revised 

the Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 29, 2008 (73 FR 

5229). 

The supplement dated April 7, 2008, 

provided clarifying information that did 

not change the scope of the application 

or the initial proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 2, 

2008. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Georgia Power Company, 

Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 

City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– 

321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, 

Georgia 

Date of application for amendments: 

August 29, 2006, as supplemented 

November 6, November 27, 2006, 

January 30, June 22, July 16, August 13, 

October 18, December 11, 2007, January 

24, February 4, February 25 (two letters, 

nos. 1389 and 0175), February 27, 

March 13, April 1, May 5, June 25, July 

2, July 14, and August 14, 2008. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise the licensing basis 

with a full scope implementation of an 

alternative source term (AST) for HNP. 

Date of issuance: August 28, 2008. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented by 

May 31, 2012 for Hatch Unit 1 and by 

May 31, 2011, for Hatch Unit 2. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–256, Unit 

2–200. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–57 and NPF–5: Amendments 

revised the licenses and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 23, 2008 (73 FR 42834). 

The supplement dated August 14, 

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 28, 2008. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
54872 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 

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@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 

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@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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 54873 

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. 

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 

Viewer TM to access the Electronic 

Information Exchange (EIE), a 

component of the E-Filing system. The 

Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and 

is available at http://www.nrc.gov/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 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
54874 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 

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. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton 

County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: August 

26, 2008, as supplemented on August 

28, 2008. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments revise Functional Unit 

6.f of Table 3.3–3, ‘‘Engineered Safety 

Feature Actuation System 

Instrumentation,’’ modifying the mode 

of applicability with two footnotes. The 

first footnote indicates that the auxiliary 

feedwater (AFW) auto-start function 

associated with the trip of main 

feedwater (MFW) pumps in Mode 2 is 

only required when one or more MFW 

pumps are supplying feedwater to the 

steam generators. The second footnote, 

which annotates the minimum channels 

operable column for Functional Unit 6.f 

of TS Table 3.3–3, indicates that one 

channel may be inoperable during Mode 

1 for up to 4 hours when starting up or 

shutting down a MFW pump. 

Functional Unit 6.f of technical 

specification Table 3.3–3 is an 

anticipatory trip function that provides 

early actuation of the AFW system. 

Date of issuance: August 29, 2008. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 45 days. 

Amendment Nos: 319 and 312. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

77 and DPR–79: Amendments revised 

the technical specifications. 

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 August 29, 

2008. 

Attorney for licensee: General 

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, 

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. 

NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day 

of September 2008. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E8–21925 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Federal Register Notice 

Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

Date: Weeks of September 22, 29, 

October 6, 13, 20, 27, 2008. 

Place: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

Status: Public and Closed. 

Week of September 22, 2008 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of September 22, 2008. 

Week of September 29, 2008—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of September 29, 2008. 

Week of October 6, 2008—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of October 6, 2008. 

Week of October 13, 2008—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of October 13, 2008. 

Week of October 20, 2008—Tentative 

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 

9:30 a.m. Briefing on New Reactor 

Issues—Construction Readiness, 

Part 1 (Public Meeting) (Contact: 

Roger Rihm, 301 415–7807). 

1:30 p.m. Briefing on New Reactor 

Issues—Construction Readiness, 

Part 2 (Public Meeting) (Contact: 

Roger Rihm, 301 415–7807). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

Week of October 27, 2008—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of October 27, 2008. 

*The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. To verify the status of meetings, 

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. 

Contact person for more information: 

Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1662. 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policymaking/schedule.html. 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g. 

braille, large print), please notify the 

NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, 

Rohn Brown, at 301–492–2279, TDD: 

301–415–2100, or by e-mail at 

rohn.brown@nrc.gov. Determinations on 

requests for reasonable accommodation 

will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

This notice is distributed by mail to 

several hundred subscribers; if you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969). 

In addition, distribution of this meeting 

notice over the Internet system is 

available. If you are interested in 

receiving this Commission meeting 

schedule electronically, please send an 

electronic message to 

darlene.wright@nrc.gov. 

Dated: September 18, 2008. 

R. Michelle Schroll, 

Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–22345 Filed 9–19–08; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of Investor 

Education and Advocacy Washington, 

DC 20549–0213. 

Reports of Evidence of Material Violations: 

SEC File No. 270–514, OMB Control No. 

3235–0572. 

Notice is hereby given that pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Sections 3501–3520, 

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is 

soliciting comments on the collection of 

information summarized below. The 

Commission plans to submit the 

existing collection of information to the 

Office of Management and Budget for 

extension. 

On February 6, 2003, the Commission 

published final rules, effective August 5, 

2003, entitled ‘‘Standards of 

Professional Conduct for Attorneys 

Appearing and Practicing Before the 

Commission in the Representation of an 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES