E8-18185. Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

I. Background

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

This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from July 17, 2008 to July 30, 2008. The last biweekly notice was published on July 29, 2008 (73 FR 43953).

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.

Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/​reading-rm/​doc-collections/​cfr/​. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.

Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends 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 [e-mail], or by calling [phone], to request (1) a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer^TM to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer^TM is free and is available at http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals/​install-viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals/​apply-certificates.html.

Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is [phone] or locally, [phone].

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service.

Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd.nrc.gov/​EHD_​Proceeding/​home.asp, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as Social Security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/​reading-rm/​adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 [phone], [phone] or by e-mail to [e-mail].

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois.

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

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania.

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

Date of amendment request: June 9, 2008.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would adopt the Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification (STS) change TSTF-475, Revision 1. The amendments would: (1) (a) Revise the TS surveillance requirement (SR) frequency in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY” (except for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), and (b) revise the TS surveillance requirement in TS 4.2, “Reactivity Control,” Specification D (for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station); (2) clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, “Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation” (Clinton Power Station only); and (3) revise Example 1.4-3 in section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station excluded).

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the Federal Register on November 13, 2007 (72 FR 63935), on possible license amendments adopting TSTF-475 using the NRC's consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) for amending licensees' TSs, which included a model safety evaluation (SE) and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the Federal Register on August 16, 2007 (72 FR 46103), which included the resolution of public comments on the model SE. The August 16, 2007, notice of availability referenced the November 13, 2007, notice. The licensee has affirmed the applicability of the November 13, 2007, NSHC determination in its application.

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—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated

The proposed change generically implements TSTF-475, Revision 1, ”Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod Action.” TSTF-475, Revision 1, modifies NUREG-1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG-1434 (BWR/6) STS. The changes: (1) Revise TS testing frequency for surveillance requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 in TS 3.1.3, for the subject plants, except Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, and the TS surveillance requirement in TS 4.2, Specification D for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, (2) clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, ”Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation” (NUREG-1434 only), and (3) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4, “Frequency,” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. This change does not affect either the design or operation of the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM). The affected surveillance and Required Action is not considered to be an initiator of any analyzed event. Revising the frequency for notch testing fully withdrawn control rods will not affect the ability of the control rods to shutdown the reactor if required. Given the extremely reliable nature of the CRDM, as demonstrated through industry operating experience, the proposed monthly notch testing of all withdrawn control rods continues to provide a high level of confidence in control rod operability. Hence, the overall intent of the notch testing surveillances, which is to detect either random stuck control rods or identify generic concerns affecting control rod operability, is not significantly affected by the proposed change. Requiring control rods to be fully inserted when the associated SRM is inoperable is consistent with other similar requirements and will increase the shutdown margin. The clarification of Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4, “Frequency,” is an editorial change made to provide consistency with other discussions in Section 1.4. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The consequences of an accident after adopting TSTF-475, Revision 1, are no different than the consequences of an accident prior to adoption. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From any Accident Previously Evaluated

The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously analyzed. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety

TSTF-475, Revision 1, will: (1) Revise the TS SR 3.1.3.2 frequency in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY,” (2) clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, “Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation,” and (3) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4, “Frequency,” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The GE Nuclear Energy Report, “CRD Notching Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,” dated November 2006, concludes that extending the control rod notch test interval from weekly to monthly is not expected to impact the reliability of the scram system and that the analysis supports the decision to change the surveillance frequency. Therefore, the proposed changes in TSTF-475, Revision 1, do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee: Bradley Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.

NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina.

Date of amendment request: April 30, 2008.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) section 3.7.5a to restore the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) Main Reservoir minimum level to the value allowed by the initial operating license as a result of improvements made to the Emergency Service Water system. The change will allow continued plant operation to a Main Reservoir minimum level of 206 feet (ft) Mean Sea Level (MSL) in Modes 1-4, versus the current minimum allowed level of 215 ft MSL.

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 change to decrease the UHS Main Reservoir minimum level does not alter the function, design, or operating practices for plant systems or components. The UHS is utilized to remove heat loads from plant systems during normal and accident conditions. This function is not expected or postulated to result in the generation of any accident and continues to adequately satisfy the associated safety functions with the proposed change. Therefore, the probability of an accident presently evaluated in the safety analyses will not be increased because the UHS function does not have the potential to be the source of an accident.

The heat loads that the UHS is designed to accommodate have been evaluated for functionality with the reduced level requirement. The result of these evaluations is that there is existing margin associated with the systems that utilize the UHS for normal and accident conditions. This margin is sufficient to accommodate the postulated normal and accident heat loads with the proposed change to the UHS. Since the safety functions of the UHS are maintained, the systems that ensure acceptable offsite dose consequences will continue to operate as designed. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change does not introduce any new modes of plant operation and will not result in a change to the design function of any structure, system, or component that is used for accident mitigation. By allowing the proposed change in the UHS Main Reservoir level, only the parameters for UHS operation are changed, while the safety functions of the UHS and systems that provide heat sink capability continue to be maintained. The UHS function provides accident mitigation capabilities and does not reflect the potential for accident generation. Therefore, the possibility for creating a new or different kind of accident is not feasible because the UHS is only utilized for heat removal functions that are not a potential source for accident generation.

The proposed change does not result in any credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the original design and licensing basis. The engineering analyses performed to support the proposed change demonstrate that affected safety-related systems and components are capable of performing their intended safety functions at the reduced Main Reservoir level. Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed change has been evaluated for systems that are needed to support accident mitigation functions as well as normal operational evolutions. Operational margins were found to exist in the systems that utilize the UHS capabilities such that this proposed change will not result in the loss of any safety function necessary for normal or accident conditions. While operating margins have been reduced by the proposed changes, safety margins have been maintained as assumed in the accident analyses for postulated events. 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 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, North Carolina 27602.

NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

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

Date of amendment request: May 2, 2008.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, “Diesel Fuel Oil and Starting Air,” to replace the numerical volume requirements for stored diesel fuel oil inventory with requirements that state that volumes equivalent to seven days and six days of fuel oil are available. Exelon Generation Company is requesting to move the diesel fuel oil numerical volumes equivalent to seven-day and six-day supplies to the TS Bases.

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 TS change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change relocates the numerical volume of diesel fuel oil required to support seven-day operation of the onsite DGs [diesel generators], and the numerical volume equivalent to a six-day supply, to licensee control. The specific volumes of fuel oil equivalent to a seven-day and six day supply is calculated considering the DG manufacturer's fuel oil consumption rates and the energy content of ULSD [ultra low sulfur diesel] fuel. Moreover, these calculations consider the entire range of API [American Petroleum Industry] gravities allowed by the LSCS [LaSalle County Station] Diesel Fuel Oil Testing Program. The requirement to meet UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] 9.5.4.1.1.d, diesel loading assumptions, maintain a seven-day supply, and the actions taken when the volume of fuel oil available is less than a six-day supply have not changed. These requirements remain consistent with the assumptions in the accident analyses, and neither the probability, nor the consequences of any accident previously evaluated will be affected by the proposed change.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed TS change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed), or affect the control parameters governing unit operation, or the response of plant equipment to transient conditions. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.

Based on the above information, 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 TS change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed change relocates the numerical volumes of diesel fuel oil required to support seven-day operation of the onsite DGs, and the numerical volumes equivalent to a six-day supply, to licensee control. As the bases for the existing limits on diesel fuel oil are not changed, no change is made to the accident analysis assumptions, and no margin of safety is reduced as part of this change.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.

NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota.

Date of amendment request: June 26, 2008.

Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to amend the Technical Specifications, revising existing Condition D of Specification 3.5.1, “ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System]—Operating,” to: (1) Apply to two entire Low-Pressure Core Injection (LPCI) subsystems being inoperable (currently, the Condition applies when two LPCl subsystems are inoperable due to inoperable injection paths); (2) add a new Condition E to provide a 72-hour completion time when one Core Spray subsystem and one LPCl subsystem (or one or two LPCl pump(s) are inoperable; (3) add a new Condition F to provide a 72-hour completion time when both Core Spray subsystems are inoperable; and (4) re-designate the Conditions and Required Actions (starting at existing letter E) to reflect the insertion of new Conditions E and F (i.e., these are purely editorial changes).

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). The licensee's NSHC analysis is reproduced below:

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The low pressure Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystems are designed to inject to reflood or to spray the core after any size break up to and including a design basis Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). The proposed changes to the Required Actions and associated Completion Times do not change the conditions, operating configurations, or minimum amount of operating equipment assumed in the safety analysis for accident mitigation. No changes are proposed to the manner in which the ECCS provides plant protection or which would create new modes of plant operation.

The proposed changes will not affect the probability of any event 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 situation. There will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or accident mitigation performance.

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.

There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the method by which any plant systems perform a safety function. This request does not affect the normal method of plant operation.

The proposed changes do not introduce new equipment, which could create a new or different kind of accident. No new external threats, release pathways, or equipment failure modes are created. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this request.

Therefore, the implementation of the proposed changes will not create a possibility for an accident of a new or different type than those previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The ECCS are designed with sufficient redundancy such that a division of low pressure ECCS may be removed from service for maintenance or testing. The remaining subsystems are capable of providing water and removing heat loads to satisfy the Updated Safety Analysis Report requirements for accident mitigation or unit safe shutdown.

There will be no change to the manner in which the safety limits or limiting safety system settings are determined nor will there be any change to those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. There will be no change to post-LOCA peak clad temperatures.

For these reasons, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on the NRC staff's own analysis above, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.

For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/​reading-rm/​adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 [phone], [phone] or by e-mail to [e-mail].

Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina.

Date of application for amendment: July 17, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated November 9, 2007, and April 1, 2008.

Brief description of amendment: The amendment establishes more effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room envelope in accordance with the NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, “Control Room Habitability.” This technical specification improvement was initially made available in the Federal Register by the NRC on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022).

Date of issuance: July 23, 2008.

Effective date: Effective as of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days.

Amendment No: 219.

Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: The amendment revises the Technical Specifications and Facility Operating License.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49570). The supplements dated November 9, 2007, and April 1, 2008, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated July 23, 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, as supplemented by letter dated July 1, 2008.

Brief description of amendment: The amendment relocates the Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.7, “Reactor Coolant System Chemistry,” to the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM). The change is consistent with the NUREG 1432, “Standard Technical Specifications for Combustion Engineering Plants.”

Date of issuance: July 23, 2008.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance.

Amendment No.: 280.

Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications/license.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR 25039). The supplement dated July 1, 2008, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 23, 2008.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois.

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

Date of application for amendments: August 1, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated February 26 and May 1, 2008.

Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the technical specification allowable value (AV) for the Reactor Protection System (RPS) Instrumentation Function 10, “Turbine Condenser Vacuum—Low,” specified in TS Table 3.3.1.1-1, “Reactor Protection System Instrumentation,” for Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (DNPS), and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2. The amendments also revise the Channel Functional Test and Channel Calibration Surveillance Test Interval (STI) for DNPS TS Table 3.3.1.1-1, Function 10. As part of the DNPS STI revision, surveillance requirement 3.3.1.10, “Channel Calibration,” which is specific to the Turbine Condenser Vacuum—Low instrument function, is deleted since it is no longer applicable.

Date of issuance: July 22, 2008.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days.

Amendment Nos.: 227, 219, 239, 234.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, DPR-29 and DPR-30. The amendments revise the Technical Specifications and Licenses.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (72 FR 68214) The February 26 and May 1, 2008, supplements contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 22, 2008.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.

Date of application for amendments: March 31, 2008.

Brief description of amendments: These amendments to the Technical Specification delete the definition of E Bar and replace the current limits on reactor coolant system (RCS) gross specific activity with a new limit on RCS noble gas activity. The noble gas activity is now based on dose equivalent Xenon-133 definition and replaces the E Bar definition. The changes are consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-490, Revision 0.

Date of issuance: July 14, 2008.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days.

Amendment Nos.: 233, 238.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: Amendments revised the Technical Specifications/License.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR 25041). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 14, 2008.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (NMP-2), Oswego County, New York.

Date of application for amendment: July 12, 2007, as supplemented on June 19, 2008.

Brief description of amendment: The amendment establishes more effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room envelope in accordance with the NRC-approved Technical Specification (TS) Task Force Traveler (TSTF)-448, Revision 3, and changes the NMP2 TSs related to control room envelope habitability in TS section 3.7.2, “Control Room Envelope Filtration (CREF) System,” and TS section 5.5, “Programs and Manuals.” The amendment also adds a license condition to support implementation of the TS changes.

Date of issuance: July 15, 2008.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 120 days.

Amendment No.: 126

Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-69: Amendment revised the License and TSs.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51864). The supplemental letter dated June 19, 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 July 15, 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: July 12, 2007, as supplemented on June 19, 2008.

Brief description of amendment: The amendment establishes more effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room envelope in accordance with the NRC-approved Technical Specification (TS) Task Force Traveler (TSTF)-448, Revision 3, and changes the NMP1 TSs related to control room envelope habitability in TS Section 3.4.5, “Control Room Air Treatment System,” and TS Section 6.5, “Programs and Manuals.” The amendment also adds a license condition to support implementation of the TS changes.

Date of issuance: July 15, 2008.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 120 days.

Amendment No.: 195.

Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63: Amendment revised the License and TSs.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51863). The supplemental letter dated June 19, 2008, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 15, 2008.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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 application for amendments: July 19, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated June 25, 2008.

Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise surveillance requirements for the duration of the heater tests for technical specification (TS) 3.6.9, “Shield Building Ventilation System (SBVS),” TS 3.7.12, “Auxiliary Building Special Ventilation System (ABSVS),” TS 3.7.13, “Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System (SFPSVS),” and the frequency for performance of filter tests in TS 5.5.9, “Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP).

Date of issuance: July 18, 2008.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days.

Amendment Nos.: 186, 176.

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register : October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57355). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 18, 2008. The information contained in the June 25, 2008, supplement is clarifying in nature and does not change either the scope of the amendment request or the no significant hazards consideration determination.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

Date of amendment request: June 26, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated April 29 and May 27, 2008.

Brief description of amendments: The amendments added a new license condition (12) for Unit 1 and new license condition (10) for Unit 2 on the control room envelope (CRE) habitability program. In addition, the amendments revised the Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to the habitability of the CRE in TS 3.7.7, “Control Room Makeup and Cleanup Filtration System (CRMCFS),” and added the new Control Room Envelope Habitability Program to TS Section 6.8, “Administrative Controls—Procedures, Programs, and Manuals.” These changes are consistent with the NRC-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, “Control Room Envelope Habitability.” The availability of the TS improvement was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022), as part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process.

Date of issuance: July 29, 2008.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—185; Unit 2—172.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register : August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45460). The supplemental letters dated April 29 and May 27, 2008, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2008.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)

During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.

For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local media to provide notice to the public in the area surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the public comments.

In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible.

Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved.

The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.

For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/​reading-rm/​adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 [phone], [phone] or by e-mail to [e-mail].

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/​reading-rm/​doc-collections/​cfr/​. If there are problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 [phone], [phone], or by e-mail to [e-mail]. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.

Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.^[1] Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the following groups:

1. Technical—primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the applications.

2. Environmental—primarily concerns/issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the applications.

3. Miscellaneous—does not fall into one of the categories outlined above.

As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring petitioner/requestor a representative who shall have the authority to act for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.

A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 28, 2007, (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve documents over the Internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/ requestor must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at [e-mail], or by calling [phone], to request (1) a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/ requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer^TM to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer^TM is free and is available at http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals/​install-viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals/​apply-certificates.html.

Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is [phone] or locally, [phone].

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, 2085 Attention 2,: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service.

Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd.nrc.gov/​EHD_​Proceeding/​home.asp, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50 390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee.

Date of amendment request: July 24, 2008.

Description of amendment request: This amendment allows the implementation of a temporary alteration that will be used to restore Train A of the Essential Raw Cooling Water (ERCW) to a functional condition and to provide additional time to restore the operability of at least one of the inoperable ERCW pumps. Additionally, this amendment adds a temporary CONDITION and a Note to Technical Specification 3.7.8, “Essential Raw Cooling Water,” reflecting the restoration of functionality of Train A ERCW by the temporary alteration.

Date of issuance: July 24, 2008.

Effective date: July 24, 2008, and shall be implemented as of the date of issuance.

Amendment No.: 69.

Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revises the Technical Specifications and License.

Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC):

No. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated July 24, 2008.

Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 6A West Tower, ET 11H, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, TN 37902.

NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of July 2008.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Joseph G. Giitter,

Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Footnotes

1.  To the extent that the applications contain attachments and supporting documents that are not publicly available because they are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information, petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a protective order.