[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8068-8076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2143]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 January 17, 2008, to January 30, 2008. The 
last biweekly notice was published on (73 FR 5215).

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

[[Page 8069]]

applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be 
limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under 
consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would 
entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who 
fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one 
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be 
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC 
promulgated in August 28, 2007, (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process 
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet 
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. 
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they 
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/ requestor 
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/ 
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM 
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the 
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and is 
available at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on NRC's public website 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 website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line, 
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or 
locally, (301) 415-4737.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance 
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting 
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such 
filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 
Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited 
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a 
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all 
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail 
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition 
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be 
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later 
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or 
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal 
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, 
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted 
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the 
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, 
participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in 
their submission.
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by email to [email protected].

[[Page 8070]]

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

    Date of amendment request: June 21, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: A change is proposed to the 
technical specifications (TSs) of Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 
(CPS), consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-423 to the 
standard technical specifications (STSs) for boiling-water reactor 
(BWR) plants to allow, for some systems, entry into hot shutdown rather 
than cold shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is assessed and managed 
consistent with the program in place for complying with the 
requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 
Section 50.65(a)(4). The proposed amendment would modify the TS to 
risk-informed requirements regarding selected required action end 
states provided in TSTF-423, Revision 0, ``Technical Specification End 
States, NEDC-32988-A.''
    The CPS has reviewed the proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC) determination published on March 23, 2006, (71 FR 
14743) as part of the consolidated line item improvement process and, 
based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. The licensee has affirmed the applicability of 
the following 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 allows a change to certain required end 
states when the TS Completion Times for remaining in power operation 
will be exceeded. Most of the requested technical specification (TS) 
changes are to permit an end state of hot shutdown (Mode 3) rather 
than an end state of cold shutdown (Mode 4) contained in the current 
TS. The request was limited to: (1) Those end states where entry 
into the shutdown mode is for a short interval, (2) entry is 
initiated by inoperability of a single train of equipment or a 
restriction on a plant operational parameter, unless otherwise 
stated in the applicable technical specification, and (3) the 
primary purpose is to correct the initiating condition and return to 
power operation as soon as is practical. Risk insights from both the 
qualitative and quantitative risk assessments were used in specific 
TS assessments. Such assessments are documented in Section 6 of GE 
NEDC-32988, Revision 2, ``Technical Justification to Support Risk 
Informed Modification to Selected Required Action End States for BWR 
Plants.'' They provide an integrated discussion of deterministic and 
probabilistic issues, focusing on specific technical specifications, 
which are used to support the proposed TS end state and associated 
restrictions. The [NRC] staff finds that the risk insights support 
the conclusions of the specific TS assessments. Therefore, the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly 
increased, if at all. The consequences of an accident after adopting 
proposed TSTF-423, are no different than the consequences of an 
accident prior to adopting TSTF-423. Therefore, the consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by 
this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the 
risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible 
concerns. 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 Previously Evaluated.

    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
If risk is assessed and managed, allowing a change to certain 
required end states when the TS Completion Times for remaining in 
power operation are exceeded, i.e., entry into hot shutdown rather 
than cold shutdown to repair equipment, 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 evaluated. The addition of 
a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this 
change and the commitment by the licensee to adhere to the guidance 
in TSTF-IG-05-02, Implementation Guidance for TSTF-423, Revision 0, 
``Technical Specifications End States, NEDC-32988-A,'' will further 
minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident 
previously evaluated.

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

    The proposed change allows, for some systems, entry into hot 
shutdown rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is 
assessed and managed. The BWROG's risk assessment approach is 
comprehensive and follows [NRC] staff guidance as documented in RGs 
[Regulatory Guides] 1.174 and 1.177. In addition, the analyses show 
that the criteria of the three-tiered approach for allowing TS 
changes are met. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was 
assessed following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG 
1.177. A risk assessment was performed to justify the proposed TS 
changes. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant. 
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee and 
based on this review, it appears that the 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.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: January 14, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to control 
room envelope habitability in accordance with TS Task Force (TSTF) 
traveler TSTF-448-A, ``Control Room Habitability,'' Revision 3.
    The NRC staff issued a ``Notice of Availability of Technical 
Specification Improvement to Modify Requirements Regarding Control Room 
Envelope Habitability Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement 
Process'' in the Federal Register on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022). The 
notice referenced a model safety evaluation, a model no significant 
hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, and a model license 
amendment request published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 
(71 FR 61075). In its application dated January 14, 2008, the licensee 
affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination which is 
presented below.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of NSHC adopted by the licensee 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 does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change 
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency 
ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to 
minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE 
atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents 
previously analyzed. An important part of

[[Page 8071]]

the CRE emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE 
emergency ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any 
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any 
accident previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to 
verify the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a 
program to assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE 
emergency ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating 
radiological consequences to CRE occupants during accident 
conditions, and that the CRE emergency ventilation system will 
perform as assumed in the consequence analyses of design basis 
accidents. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.

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 impact the accident analysis. The 
proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of 
the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during 
accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of 
design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No 
new or different accidents result from performing the new 
surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does 
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed 
change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is 
consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this 
change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.

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

    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety 
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an 
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to 
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 
shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee 
and, based upon this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine 
that the request for amendment involves NSHC.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.

Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power 
Plant (HBPP), Unit 3 Humboldt County, California

    Date of amendment request: November 5, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee has proposed an 
amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-7 for HBPP Unit 3 to 
delete the paragraph 2.C.1 requirement to implement and maintain a 
physical security plan. In conjunction with this request the licensee 
is also requesting exemptions from the requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(p) 
``Conditions of Licenses'' and 10 CFR 73 ``Physical Protection of 
Plants and Materials.'' In addition, the licensee is requesting 
rescission of NRC Order EA-02-077, ``Order for Interim Safeguards and 
Security Compensatory Measures'' and NRC Order EA-03-099, ``Order for 
the Implementation of Additional Security Measures Associated with 
Access Authorization, Fitness for Duty and Behavior Observation.''
    The requested license amendment, exemption and rescission would 
eliminate the security, fitness for duty and access authorization 
requirements for HBPP Unit 3 after spent nuclear fuel assemblies and 
fuel fragment containers have been transferred from the Spent Fuel Pool 
(SFP) to the Humboldt Bay (HB) Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
Installation (ISFSI).
    The licensee will be required to provide protection for the spent 
fuel in the HB ISFSI in accordance with the HB ISFSI physical security 
plan approved by NRC License SNM-2514, dated November 17, 2005, to meet 
the requirements of 10 CFR 72, subpart H, ``Physical Protection.''
    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 change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The structures, systems, and components of the Humboldt Bay 
Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3 and the operating procedures for their use 
are unaffected by the proposed change. The elimination of the 
security requirements for HBPP Unit 3 does not affect possible 
initiating events for accidents previously evaluated or alter the 
configuration or operation of the facility.
    The accidents previously evaluated include spent fuel handling 
accident, Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) rupture, heavy load drop onto fuel 
in the SFP, uncontrolled release of radioactive liquid radioactive 
waste, explosions, release of toxic chemicals and fire. None of 
these accidents are impacted by the elimination of security 
requirements.
    (2) Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is security related and has no direct impact 
on plant equipment or the procedures for operating plant equipment. 
The safety analysis for the facility remains complete and accurate. 
There are no physical changes to the facility, and the plant 
conditions for which the design basis accidents have been evaluated 
are still valid.
    (3) Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is security related and has no direct impact 
on plant equipment or the procedures for operating plant equipment. 
There are no changes to the design or operation of the facility.
    The assumptions for a fuel handling and other accidents are not 
affected by the proposed license amendment. Accordingly, neither the 
design basis nor the accident assumptions in the Defueled Safety 
Analysis Report nor the Technical Specifications Bases are affected. 
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. Jennifer K. Post, Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company, 77 Beale Street, B30A, San Francisco, CA.
    NRC Branch Chief: Andrew Persinko.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of Amendment Request: 
January 17, 2008.

    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.6, ``Control Room Normal and 
Emergency Air Handling System,'' and TS Section 6.8, ``Procedures and 
Programs.'' These changes are based on TS Task Force (TSTF) change 
traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3 that has been approved generically for 
the Standard Technical Specifications--

[[Page 8072]]

Westinghouse Plants, NUREG-1431. The NRC staff issued a notice of 
availability of a model safety evaluation and model no significant 
hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing in license 
amendment applications in the Federal Register on January 17, 2007 (72 
FR 2022). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC 
determination in its application dated January 17, 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--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change 
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits.
    The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE [control room 
envelope] emergency ventilation system, which is a mitigation system 
designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to 
filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event 
of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE 
emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency 
ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated 
is not increased. Performing tests to verify the operability of the 
CRE boundary and implementing a program to assess and maintain CRE 
habitability ensure that the CRE emergency ventilation system is 
capable of adequately mitigating radiological consequences to CRE 
occupants during accident conditions, and that the CRE emergency 
ventilation system will perform as assumed in the consequence 
analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated are not increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

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 impact the accident analysis. The 
proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of 
the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during 
accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of 
design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No 
new or different accidents result from performing the new 
surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does 
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation.
    The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis 
assumptions and is consistent with current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.

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

    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety 
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an 
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to 
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 
shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous 
discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not 
involve a no significant hazards consideration.

    The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request 
involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for Licensee: Thomas G. Eppink, South Carolina Electric & 
Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 29218.
    NRC Branch Chief: Melanie Wong, Acting Chief.

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: November 8, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specification 3/4.8.2, ``DC Sources,'' to modify 
battery surveillance requirements. Specifically, the proposed changes 
would allow battery performance discharge testing to be performed while 
the associated unit is at power.
    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:

     The proposed change[s] [do] not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Performance of the surveillance is not an accident initiator. 
Consequently, the probability of an accident occurring is not 
affected by [these] proposed change[s]. Accident mitigation will be 
provided by the redundant channels should an accident occur while a 
channel is being tested.
    The risk-informed configuration management program, as approved 
in Amendments 179 and 166, effectively manages the availability of 
required systems, structures, and components to assure there is no 
significant increase in the probability of an accident. Therefore, 
the proposed change[s] [do] not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
     The proposed change[s] [do] not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change[s] [do] not involve a new mode of operation 
or design configuration. The only change is in the duration of a 
battery's unavailability, which is established consistent with the 
level of associated risk. Therefore, the proposed change[s] [do] not 
create the possibility of a new or different accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.
     The proposed change[s] [do] not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    The risk-informed configuration management program assures that 
adequate margins of safety are maintained. The configuration 
management program considers cumulative effects of multiple systems 
and components being out of service. Therefore, the proposed 
change[s] [do] not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: A.H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas

    Date of amendment request: January 15, 2008.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the Technical Specification (TS) to establish more effective and 
appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative requirements 
related to ensuring the habitability of the control room envelope (CRE) 
in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task 
Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification

[[Page 8073]]

change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.'' 
Specifically, the proposed amendment would modify TS 3.7.10, ``Control 
Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS),'' and would establish a CRE 
habitability (CREH) program in TS Section 5.5, ``Administrative 
Controls--Programs and Manuals.'' The NRC staff issued a ``Notice of 
Availability of Technical Specification Improvement to Modify 
Requirements Regarding Control Room Envelope Habitability Using the 
Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process'' associated with TSTF-448, 
Revision 3, in the Federal Register on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022). 
The notice included a model safety evaluation, a model no significant 
hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, and a model license 
amendment request. In its application dated January 15, 2008, the 
licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination 
which is presented below.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of NSHC adopted by the licensee 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 does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change 
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency 
ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to 
minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE 
atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents 
previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency 
ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency 
ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident 
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify 
the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to 
assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency 
ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological 
consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that 
the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the 
consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

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 impact the accident analysis. The 
proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of 
the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during 
accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of 
design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No 
new or different accidents result from performing the new 
surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does 
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed 
change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is 
consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this 
change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.

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

    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety 
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an 
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to 
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 
shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee 
and, based on this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine 
that the request for amendments involves NSHC.
    Attorney for licensee: Terence A. Burke, Associate General 
Council--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, 
Mississippi 39213.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

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

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

    Date of application for amendments: December 21, 2006.
    Brief Description of amendments: The amendments change the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) related to the reactor recirculation 
system flow balance.
    Date of issuance: December 17, 2007.
    Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 244 and 272.

[[Page 8074]]

    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments 
changed the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (72 FR 
11385).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 17, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit No. 2 New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: November 8, 2006, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 4, October 4, and November 27, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Millstone 
Power Station, Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) Action and 
Surveillance Requirements for instrumentation identified in TSs 3.3.1 
and 3.3.2. In particular, the amendment adds actions to address the 
inoperability of one or more automatic bypass removal channels; revises 
the terminology used in the notation of TS 2.2-1 and 3.3-1 relative to 
the implementation and automatic removal of certain Reactor Protective 
System trip bypasses; revises the frequency for performing surveillance 
of the automatic bypass removal function logic; and incorporates two 
administrative changes.
    Date of issuance: January 29, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 301.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised the 
License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 24, 2007 (72 FR 
20380).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 29, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315, Donald C. Cook 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCCNP-1 and DCCNP-2), Berrien County, 
Michigan

    Date of application for amendments: May 11, 2007.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the DCCNP-1 
and DCCNP-2 Technical Specifications to increase the power level at 
which performance of the trip actuating device operational test (TADOT) 
of a reactor trip following a turbine trip signal is required. 
Specifically, the previous Surveillance Requirement 3.3.1.18 required 
performance of a TADOT of a reactor trip on turbine trip prior to 
exceeding the P-7 interlock (at approximately 10 percent of the rated 
thermal power (RTP)) whenever the unit has been in Mode 3, if not 
performed within the previous 31 days. The amendments replace the ``P-
7'' interlock with the ``P-8'' interlock (at approximately 31 percent 
RTP).
    Date of issuance: January 11, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 45 days.
    Amendment No.: 301 (for DCCNP-1) and 284 (for DCCNP-2).
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: Amendments 
revise the Renewed Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 19, 2007 (72 FR 
33783).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated January 11, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, 
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell 
County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: December 19, 2006, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 30, and December 6, 2007.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical 
Specifications (TS) 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System,'' TS 
3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' TS 3.8.9, 
``Distribution Systems--Operating,'' and TS Example 1.3-3.
    Date of issuance: January 25, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--142; Unit 2--142.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 10, 2007 (72 FR 
17952). The supplemental letters dated November 30, and December 6, 
2007, 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 on 
April 10, 2007 (72 FR 17952). The Commission's related evaluation of 
the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 25, 
2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: September 17, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specifications Section 3.7.5 to specify the conditions and required 
actions associated with two control room ventilation subsystems 
inoperable. The revised Section 3.7.5 follows Technical Specifications 
Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-477, Revision 3, ``Add Action 
for Two Inoperable Control Room AC Subsystems.''
    Date of issuance: January 23, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 154.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2007 (72 FR 
62689).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 23, 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: January 29, 2007, supplemented 
by letters dated November 19, 2007, and December 13, 2007.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.3 ``ECCS-Shutdown'' for Prairie Island 
Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2 to change operability 
requirements for the safety injection (SI) subsystem by addition of a 
Note to the Limiting Condition for Operation 3.5.3 ``One ECCS train 
shall be OPERABLE.'' The Note states ``An SI train may be considered 
OPERABLE when the pump is capable of being manually started from the 
control room.''

[[Page 8075]]

    Date of issuance: January 28, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 183, 173.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (72 FR 
11392).
    The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did 
not change the initial no significant hazards consideration 
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal 
Register notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments 
is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 28, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received. No.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of application for amendment: April 17, 2007, as supplemented 
by letter dated June 29, 2007.
    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 Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 
Specification change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room 
Habitability.''
    Date of issuance: January 24, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 180 days.
    Amendment No.: 173.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2007 (72 FR 
31103).
    The letter dated June 29, 2007, provided clarifying information 
that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination or expand the application beyond the scope 
of the original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 24, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of application for amendments: April 15, 2007, as supplemented 
on December 10, 2007.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments establish more 
effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative 
requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room 
envelope in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 
Specification change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room 
Habitability.''
    Date of issuance: January 24, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 180 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 286 and 269.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications and the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2007 (72 FR 
31104).
    The letter dated December 10, 2007, provided clarifying information 
that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination or expand the application beyond the scope 
of the original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 24, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No

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

    Date of application for amendment: April 25, 2007, as supplemented 
August 22, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical 
Specification Surveillance Requirements 3.5.1.4, ``Accumulators,'' and 
3.5.4.3, ``Refueling Water Storage Tanks,'' to remove the note limiting 
the number of tritium producing burnable absorber rods (TPBARs) to no 
more than 240, and revises TS 4.2.1, ``Fuel Assemblies,'' to revise the 
maximum number of TPBARs that can be irradiated in the Watts Bar Unit 1 
reactor core to 400.
    Date of issuance: January 18, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 45 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 67.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revises the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2007 (72 FR 
31105). The supplemental letter dated August 22, 2007, provided 
clarifying information that was within the scope of the initial notice 
and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 18, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: February 26, 2007, as 
supplemented on April 5, May 31, July 13, July 20, September 25, and 
November 28, 2007, and January 14, 2008.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments added an 
operating license condition and revised the technical specifications to 
permit the replacement of main control room (MCR) and emergency 
switchgear room (ESGR) air-conditioning system (ACS) chilled water 
piping by using temporary 45-day and 14-day allowed outage times (AOTs) 
four times in a 24-month span.
    Date of issuance: January 23, 2008.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 258, 257.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: 
Amendments changed the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 27, 2007 (72 FR 
14308).
    The supplements dated April 5, May 31, July 13, July 20, September 
25, and November 28, 2007, and January 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 January 23, 2008.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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


[[Page 8076]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E8-2143 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P