8068 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2008 / Notices 

Dated: February 5, 2008. 

P. Diane Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–2513 Filed 2–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses Involving No Significant 

Hazards Considerations 

I. Background 

Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission or NRC 

staff) is publishing this regular biweekly 

notice. The Act requires the 

Commission publish notice of any 

amendments issued, or proposed to be 

issued and grants the Commission the 

authority to issue and make 

immediately effective any amendment 

to an operating license upon a 

determination by the Commission that 

such amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, notwithstanding 

the pendency before the Commission of 

a request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued from 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2008 / Notices 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 

hearingdocket@nrc.gov, or by calling 

(301) 415–1677, to request (1) a digital 

ID certificate, which allows the 

participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and/or (2) creation of an 

electronic docket for the proceeding 

(even in instances in which the 

petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or 

representative) already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Each 

petitioner/ requestor will need to 

download the Workplace Forms 

ViewerTM to access the Electronic 

Information Exchange (EIE), a 

component of the E-Filing system. The 

Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and 

is available at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. 

Information about applying for a digital 

ID certificate is available on NRC’s 

public website at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

site-help/e-submittals/applycertificates.html. 

Once a petitioner/requestor has 

obtained a digital ID certificate, had a 

docket created, and downloaded the EIE 

viewer, it can then submit a request for 

hearing or petition for leave to 

intervene. Submissions should be in 

Portable Document Format (PDF) in 

accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/ 

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 firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in 

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 

expedited delivery service upon 

depositing the document with the 

provider of the service. 

Non-timely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission, the presiding officer, or 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

that the petition and/or request should 

be granted and/or the contentions 

should be admitted, based on a 

balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, 

filings must be submitted no later than 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due 

date. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http:// 

ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, 

unless excluded pursuant to an order of 

the Commission, an Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. 

Participants are requested not to include 

personal privacy information, such as 

social security numbers, home 

addresses, or home phone numbers in 

their filings. With respect to copyrighted 

works, except for limited excerpts that 

serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 

filings and would constitute a Fair Use 

application, participants are requested 

not to include copyrighted materials in 

their submission. 

For further details with respect to this 

amendment action, see the application 

for amendment which is available for 

public inspection at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the ADAMS Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site, http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If 

you do not have access to ADAMS or if 

there are problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, contact 

the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–

4209, (301) 415–4737 or by email to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

8070 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2008 / Notices 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2008 / Notices 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—

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

8072 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2008 / Notices 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2008 / Notices 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 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

Carolina Power & Light Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324, 

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Brunswick County, North 

Carolina 

Date of 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. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

8074 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2008 / Notices 

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 ‘‘ECCSShutdown’’ 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.’’

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2008 / Notices 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. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

8076 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2008 / Notices 

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 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

DATES: Weeks of February 11, 18, 25, 

March 3, 10, 17, 2008. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

Matters To Be Considered 

Week of February 11, 2008 

Monday, February 11, 2008 

1 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues 

(Closed—Ex. 1) 

Week of February 18, 2008—Tentative 

Tuesday, February 19, 2008 

10:30 a.m. Meeting with the National 

Academies Radiation Source Use 

and Replacement Study Committee 

(Closed—Ex. 1) 

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 

9:30 a.m. Periodic Meeting on New 

Reactor Issues, Part 1 (Public 

Meeting) (Contact: Donna Williams, 

301–415–1322) 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

1:25 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public 

Meeting) (Tentative) 

a. Final Rule—10 CFR Part 73 

‘‘Safeguards Information Protection 

Requirements’’ (RIN 3150—AH57) 

(Tentative) 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

1:30 p.m. Periodic Meeting on New 

Reactor Issues, Part 2 (Public 

Meeting) (Contact: Donna Williams, 

301–415–1322) 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

Week of February 25, 2008—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of February 25, 2008. 

Week of March 3, 2008—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of March 3, 2008. 

Week of March 10, 2008—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of March 10, 2008. 

Week of March 17, 2008—Tentative 

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 

9:30 a.m. Briefing by Independent 

External Panel to Identify 

Vulnerabilities in the U.S. NRC’s 

Materials Licensing Program (Public 

Meeting) (Contact: Aaron T. 

McCraw, 301–415–1277) 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

* * * * * 

* The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. To verify the status of meetings, 

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. 

Contact person for more information: 

Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1662. 

* * * * * 

Additional Information 

Affirmation of ‘‘Final Rule—10 CFR 

Part 73 ‘Safeguards Information 

Protection Requirements’ (RIN 3150–

AH57)’’ tentatively scheduled on 

February 11, 2008, at 12:55 p.m. has 

been tentatively rescheduled on 

Wednesday, February 20, 2008, at 1:25 

p.m. 

* * * * * 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

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

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g. 

braille, large print), please notify the 

NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, 

Rohn Brown, at 301–492–2279, TDD: 

301–415–2100, or by e-mail at 

REB3@nrc.gov. Determinations on 

requests for reasonable accommodation 

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

* * * * * 

This notice is distributed by mail to 

several hundred subscribers; if you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969). 

In addition, distribution of this meeting 

notice over the Internet system is 

available. If you are interested in 

receiving this Commission meeting 

schedule electronically, please send an 

electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. 

Dated: February 7, 2008. 

R. Michelle Schroll, 

Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 08–657 Filed 2–8–08; 1:43 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Proposed Construction and 

Operation of a Mail Processing Facility 

in Aliso Viejo, CA 

AGENCY: Postal Service. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: To comply with the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

Postal Service intends to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the proposed construction and 

operation of a mail processing facility in 

Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California. 

The public is invited to participate in 

the project scoping process, to review 

and comment on the draft EIS, and to 

attend public meetings. 

DATES: Please submit written scoping 

comments by March 9, 2008. This notice 

is the first step in the EIS process. A 

separate notice of availability will be 

issued when the draft EIS is available 

for public review. 

To solicit public comments, a public 

scoping hearing will be held from 5:30 

to 8:30 p.m. on February 27, 2008, at the 

Wood Canyon Elementary School, 

23431 Knollwood Avenue, Aliso Viejo, 

California; (949) 448–0012. 

ADDRESSES: To submit comments, 

request copies of the draft EIS or final 

EIS when available, or for more 

information, contact Emmy Andrews, 

Pacific Facilities Service Office, United 

States Postal Service, 395 Oyster Point 

Boulevard, Suite 225, South San 

Francisco, CA 94080–0300; (650) 615–

7200. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emmy Andrews, 650–615–7200. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To comply 

with the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

Postal Service intends to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

for the proposed construction and 

operation of a mail processing facility 

on a 25-acre parcel owned by the Postal 

Service at 50 Liberty, Aliso Viejo, 

Orange County, California. The EIS will 

be prepared in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES