Notice: Operating Licenses, Amendments No Significant Hazards Considerations Biweekly Notices

41780 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.
146 / Tuesday, July 31, 2007 / Notices
following procedures apply to public This meeting will be webcast live at requests for reasonable accommodation
participation in the meeting: the Web address— http://www.nrc.gov. will be made on a case-by-case basis.
1. Persons who wish to provide a * * * * *
Week of August 6, 2007—Tentative
written statement should submit an This notice is distributed by mail to
electronic copy or mail a reproducible There are no meetings scheduled for several hundred subscribers; if you no
copy to Ms. Tull at the contact the Week of August 6, 2007. longer wish to receive it, or would like
information listed above. All submittals to be added to the distribution, please
Week of August 13, 2007—Tentative
must be postmarked by August 14, 2007, contact the Office of the Secretary,
and must pertain to the topic on the There are no meetings scheduled for Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969).
agenda for the meeting. the Week of August 13, 2007. In addition, distribution of this meeting
2. Questions from members of the notice over the Internet system is
public will be permitted during the Week of August 20, 2007—Tentative
available. If you are interested in
meeting, at the discretion of the Tuesday, August 21, 2007 receiving this Commission meeting
Chairman. schedule electronically, please send an
3. The transcript and written 1:30 p.m. Meeting with OAS and
CRCPD (Public Meeting) (Contact: electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov.
comments will be available for
inspection on NRC’s Web site Shawn Smith, 301 415–2620). Dated: July 26, 2007.
(www.nrc.gov) and at the NRC Public This meeting will be webcast live at R. Michelle Schroll,
Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. Office of the Secretary.
Rockville, MD 20852–2738, telephone Wednesday, August 22, 2007 [FR Doc. 07–3744 Filed 7–27–07; 12:11 pm]
(800) 397–4209, on or about November BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
16, 2007. Minutes of the meeting will be 9:30 a.m. Periodic Briefing on New
available on or about September 17, Reactor Issues (Morning Session)
2007. (Public Meeting) (Contact: Donna NUCLEAR REGULATORY
This meeting will be held in Williams, 301 415–1322). COMMISSION
accordance with the Atomic Energy Act This meeting will be webcast live at
of 1954, as amended (primarily Section the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. Biweekly Notice; Applications and
161a); the Federal Advisory Committee Amendments to Facility Operating
1:30 p.m. Periodic Briefing on New
Act (5 U.S.C. App); and the Licenses Involving no Significant
Reactor Issues (Afternoon Session)
Commission’s regulations in Title 10, Hazards Considerations
(Public Meeting) (Contact: Donna
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 7. Williams, 301 415–1322). I. Background
Dated: July 25, 2007. This meeting will be webcast live at Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the
Andrew L. Bates, the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
Advisory Committee Management Officer. Week of August 27, 2007—Tentative (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
[FR Doc. E7–14715 Filed 7–30–07; 8:45 am] Commission (the Commission or NRC
There are no meetings scheduled for staff) is publishing this regular biweekly
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
the Week of August 27, 2007. notice. The Act requires the
Week of September 3, 2007—Tentative Commission publish notice of any
NUCLEAR REGULATORY amendments issued, or proposed to be
COMMISSION There are no meetings scheduled for issued and grants the Commission the
the Week of September 3, 2007. authority to issue and make
Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings * * * * * immediately effective any amendment
* The schedule for Commission to an operating license upon a
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear
meetings is subject to change on short determination by the Commission that
Regulatory Commission. such amendment involves no significant
notice. To verify the status of meetings
DATE: Weeks of July 30, August 6, 13, hazards consideration, notwithstanding
call (recording)—(301) 415–1292.
20, 27, September 3, 2007. the pendency before the Commission of
Contact person for more information:
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1662. a request for a hearing from any person.
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, This biweekly notice includes all
* * * * *
Maryland. notices of amendments issued, or
The NRC Commission Meeting proposed to be issued from July 4, 2007
STATUS: Public and Closed.
Schedule can be found on the Internet to July 18, 2007. The last biweekly
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy- notice was published on July 17, 2007
Week of July 30, 2007 making/schedule.html. (72 FR 39081).
* * * * *
Thursday, August 2, 2007 Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
The NRC provides reasonable
1:25 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public accommodation to individuals with Amendments to Facility Operating
Meeting) (Tentative). disabilities where appropriate. If you Licenses, Proposed no Significant
a. Dominion Nuclear North Anna, need a reasonable accommodation to Hazards Consideration Determination,
LLC (Early Site Permit for North participate in these public meetings, or and Opportunity for a Hearing
Anna ESP Site), LBP–07–9 (June 29, need this meeting notice or the The Commission has made a
2007) (Tentative). transcript or other information from the proposed determination that the
This meeting will be webcast live at public meetings in another format (e.g. following amendment requests involve
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. braille, large print), please notify the no significant hazards consideration.
1:30 p.m. Briefing on Risk-Informed, NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, Under the Commission’s regulations in
Performance-Based Regulation Rohn Brown, at 301–492–2279, TDD: 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
(Public Meeting) (Contact: John 301–415–2100, or by e-mail at of the facility in accordance with the
Monninger, 301 415–6189). REB3@nrc.gov. Determinations on proposed amendment would not (1)
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:11 Jul 30, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM 31JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 31, 2007 / Notices 41781
Involve a significant increase in the may be examined at the Commission’s contentions which the petitioner/
probability or consequences of an Public Document Room (PDR), located requestor seeks to have litigated at the
accident previously evaluated; or (2) at One White Flint North, Public File proceeding.
create the possibility of a new or Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first Each contention must consist of a
different kind of accident from any floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of specific statement of the issue of law or
accident previously evaluated; or (3) requests for a hearing and petitions for fact to be raised or controverted. In
involve a significant reduction in a leave to intervene is discussed below. addition, the petitioner/requestor shall
margin of safety. The basis for this Within 60 days after the date of provide a brief explanation of the bases
proposed determination for each publication of this notice, the licensee for the contention and a concise
amendment request is shown below. may file a request for a hearing with statement of the alleged facts or expert
The Commission is seeking public respect to issuance of the amendment to opinion which support the contention
comments on this proposed the subject facility operating license and and on which the petitioner/requestor
determination. Any comments received any person whose interest may be intends to rely in proving the contention
within 30 days after the date of affected by this proceeding and who at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor
publication of this notice will be wishes to participate as a party in the must also provide references to those
considered in making any final proceeding must file a written request specific sources and documents of
determination. Within 60 days after the for a hearing and a petition for leave to which the petitioner is aware and on
date of publication of this notice, the intervene. Requests for a hearing and a which the petitioner/requestor intends
licensee may file a request for a hearing petition for leave to intervene shall be to rely to establish those facts or expert
with respect to issuance of the filed in accordance with the opinion. The petition must include
amendment to the subject facility Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for sufficient information to show that a
operating license and any person whose Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 genuine dispute exists with the
interest may be affected by this CFR part 2. Interested persons should applicant on a material issue of law or
proceeding and who wishes to consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, fact. Contentions shall be limited to
participate as a party in the proceeding which is available at the Commission’s matters within the scope of the
must file a written request for a hearing PDR, located at One White Flint North, amendment under consideration. The
and a petition for leave to intervene. Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville contention must be one which, if
Normally, the Commission will not Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. proven, would entitle the petitioner/
issue the amendment until the Publicly available records will be requestor to relief. A petitioner/
expiration of 60 days after the date of accessible from the Agencywide requestor who fails to satisfy these
publication of this notice. The Documents Access and Management requirements with respect to at least one
Commission may issue the license System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic contention will not be permitted to
amendment before expiration of the 60- Reading Room on the Internet at the participate as a party.
day period provided that its final NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ Those permitted to intervene become
determination is that the amendment reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a parties to the proceeding, subject to any
involves no significant hazards request for a hearing or petition for limitations in the order granting leave to
consideration. In addition, the leave to intervene is filed within 60 intervene, and have the opportunity to
Commission may issue the amendment days, the Commission or a presiding participate fully in the conduct of the
prior to the expiration of the 30-day officer designated by the Commission or hearing.
comment period should circumstances by the Chief Administrative Judge of the If a hearing is requested, and the
change during the 30-day comment Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Commission has not made a final
period such that failure to act in a Panel, will rule on the request and/or determination on the issue of no
timely way would result, for example in petition; and the Secretary or the Chief significant hazards consideration, the
derating or shutdown of the facility. Administrative Judge of the Atomic Commission will make a final
Should the Commission take action Safety and Licensing Board will issue a determination on the issue of no
prior to the expiration of either the notice of a hearing or an appropriate significant hazards consideration. The
comment period or the notice period, it order. final determination will serve to decide
will publish in the Federal Register a As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a when the hearing is held. If the final
notice of issuance. Should the petition for leave to intervene shall set determination is that the amendment
Commission make a final No Significant forth with particularity the interest of request involves no significant hazards
Hazards Consideration Determination, the petitioner in the proceeding, and consideration, the Commission may
any hearing will take place after how that interest may be affected by the issue the amendment and make it
issuance. The Commission expects that results of the proceeding. The petition immediately effective, notwithstanding
the need to take this action will occur should specifically explain the reasons the request for a hearing. Any hearing
very infrequently. why intervention should be permitted held would take place after issuance of
Written comments may be submitted with particular reference to the the amendment. If the final
by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, following general requirements: (1) The determination is that the amendment
Directives and Editing Branch, Division name, address, and telephone number of request involves a significant hazards
of Administrative Services, Office of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the consideration, any hearing held would
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s take place before the issuance of any
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– right under the Act to be made a party amendment.
0001, and should cite the publication to the proceeding; (3) the nature and A request for a hearing or a petition
date and page number of this Federal extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s for leave to intervene must be filed by:
Register notice. Written comments may property, financial, or other interest in (1) First class mail addressed to the
also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two the proceeding; and (4) the possible Office of the Secretary of the
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville effect of any decision or order which Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 may be entered in the proceeding on the Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Copies of written comments received petition must also set forth the specific Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express
41782 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 31, 2007 / Notices
mail, and expedited delivery services: Program. All of these changes are no new accident precursors are being
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, proposed to be consistent with NUREG– introduced. The proposed change will
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 1431, Revision 3, ‘‘Standard Technical revise TS to appropriately reference the
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Specifications Westinghouse Plants.’’ ASME Code required by 10 CFR 50.55a
Attention: Rulemaking and Basis for proposed no significant for performing inservice testing, which
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail hazards consideration determination: will continue to ensure that the
addressed to the Office of the Secretary, As required by Title 10 of the Code of inspection and testing requirements
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.91(a), required by regulations are met. Since
HearingDocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile the licensee has provided its analysis of inservice testing will continue to be
transmission addressed to the Office of the issue of no significant hazards performed in accordance with
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory consideration, which is presented regulations, adequate assurance is
Commission, Washington, DC, below: provided to ensure that the safety-
Attention: Rulemakings and 1. Does the proposed change involve related pumps and valves will continue
Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101, a significant increase in the probability to operate as required. No new testing
verification number is (301) 415–1966. or consequences of an accident is required that could create a new or
A copy of the request for hearing and previously evaluated? different type of accident.
petition for leave to intervene should Response: No. Therefore, this amendment does not
also be sent to the Office of the General The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory involve a significant increase in the different kind of accident from any
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
0001, and it is requested that copies be accident previously evaluated, and it 3. Does the proposed change involve
transmitted either by means of facsimile does not change an accident previously a significant reduction in a margin of
transmission to (301) 415–3725 or by e- evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis safety?
mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy Report (FSAR). The proposed change is Response: No.
of the request for hearing and petition administrative in nature, and it will The proposed amendment does not
for leave to intervene should also be continue to ensure that the inspection involve a significant reduction in a
sent to the attorney for the licensee. and testing requirements required by margin of safety. The proposed
Nontimely requests and/or petitions regulations are met. The American amendment does not adversely affect a
and contentions will not be entertained Society of Mechanical Engineers plant safety limit or a limiting safety
absent a determination by the (ASME) Code requirements are system setting, and does not alter a
Commission or the presiding officer of established, reviewed and approved by design basis limit for a parameter
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ASME, the industry, and ultimately evaluated in the FSAR. The proposed
that the petition, request and/or the endorsed by the NRC for inclusion into change is administrative in nature, and
contentions should be granted based on 10 CFR 50.55a. Updates to the ASME it will continue to ensure that the
a balancing of the factors specified in 10 Code reflect advances in technology and inspection and testing requirements
CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)–(viii). consider information obtained from required by regulations are met. Since
For further details with respect to this plant operating experience to provide inservice testing will continue to be
action, see the application for enhanced inspection and testing. Thus, performed in accordance with
amendment which is available for the proposed change will revise TS to regulations, adequate assurance is
public inspection at the Commission’s appropriately reference the ASME Code provided to ensure that the safety-
PDR, located at One White Flint North, required by 10 CFR 50.55a for related pumps and valves will continue
Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville performing inservice testing, to operate as required and perform their
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. specifically referencing the ASME Code intended safety function.
Publicly available records will be for Operation and Maintenance of Therefore, this amendment does not
accessible from the ADAMS Public Nuclear Power Plants, rather than the involve a significant reduction in a
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet ASME Section XI Code. margin of safety.
at the NRC Web site, http:// The proposed change does not affect The NRC staff has reviewed the
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If operations, and the inspection and licensee’s analysis and, based on this
you do not have access to ADAMS or if testing required is not an accident review, it appears that the three
there are problems in accessing the initiator. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
documents located in ADAMS, contact Therefore, this amendment does not satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397– involve a significant increase in the proposes to determine that the
4209, (301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to probability or consequences of an amendment request involves no
pdr@nrc.gov. accident previously evaluated. significant hazards consideration.
2. Does the proposed change create Attorney for licensee: David T.
Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., the possibility of a new of different kind Conley, Associate General Counsel II—
Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris of accident from any accident Legal Department, Progress Energy
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and previously evaluated? Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box
Chatham Counties, North Carolina Response: No. 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
Date of amendment request: June 15, The proposed amendment does not NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
2007. create the possibility of a new or
Description of amendment request: different kind of accident from any Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50–
The amendment proposes to relocate the accident previously evaluated, and it 382, Waterford Steam Electric Station,
inservice testing requirements to the does not change an accident previously Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
administrative section of the technical evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Date of amendment request: July 3,
specifications (TS), remove the inservice Report (FSAR). As noted above, the 2007.
inspection activities from TS and locate proposed change is administrative in Description of amendment request:
them in an owner-controlled program, nature, the inspection and testing The proposed change relocates the
and establish a TS Bases Control required is not an accident initiator, and quality and quantity requirements
associated with the emergency diesel The proposed change does not result accident. The change does not require
generator (EDG) fuel oil within the in any plant modifications. Diesel any physical plant modifications,
Technical Specifications (TS) through generator fuel oil quantity and quality physically affect any plant components,
the creation of a new TS Limiting will continue to be maintained within or entail changes in plant operation.
Condition for Operation and the Diesel acceptable limits to assure the ability of Therefore, no individual precursors of
Fuel Oil Testing Program. the EDG to perform its intended an accident are affected.
Basis for proposed no significant function. The proposed change revises the
hazards consideration determination: Therefore, the proposed change does SLMCPR to protect the fuel during
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the not involve a significant reduction in a normal operation as well as during plant
licensee has provided its analysis of the margin of safety. transients or AOOs. Operational limits
issue of no significant hazards The NRC staff has reviewed the will be established based on the
consideration, which is presented licensee’s analysis and, based on this proposed SLMCPR to ensure that the
below: review, it appears that the three SLMCPR is not violated. This will
1. Does the proposed change involve standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are ensure that the fuel design safety
a significant increase in the probability satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff criterion (i.e., that at least 99.9% of the
or consequences of an accident proposes to determine that the fuel rods do not experience transition
previously evaluated? amendment request involves no boiling during normal operation and
Response: No. significant hazards consideration. AOOs) is met. Since the proposed
The proposed changes in the diesel Attorney for licensee: Terence A. change does not affect operability of
fuel oil testing program will continue to Burke, Associate General Council— plant systems designed to mitigate any
ensure that new and stored diesel fuel Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 consequences of accidents, the
oil properties are maintained within Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi consequences of an accident previously
specified limits to assure EDG 39213. evaluated are not expected to increase.
operation. The testing of diesel NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz. Therefore, the proposed change does
generator fuel oil is not considered an not involve a significant increase in the
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
initiator or a mitigating factor in any probability or consequences of an
Docket No. 50–237, Dresden Nuclear
previously evaluated accidents. accident previously evaluated.
The deletion of the requirement to Power Station (DNPS), Unit 2, Grundy
2. Does the proposed change create
drain and inspect the fuel oil storage County, Illinois
the possibility of a new or different kind
tank (FOST) does not impact any of the Date of amendment request: July 10, of accident from any accident
previously analyzed accidents. Periodic 2007. previously evaluated?
testing of the fuel oil as required by the Description of amendment request: Response: No
Diesel Fuel Oil Testing Program will The proposed amendment would revise Creation of the possibility of a new or
identify poor quality oil. Actions are the values of the safety limit minimum different kind of accident requires
included that will require the quality of critical power ratio (SLMCPR) in creating one or more new accident
the oil to be maintained within Technical Specification (TS) Section precursors. New accident precursors
acceptable limits. Draining and 2.1.1, ‘‘Reactor Core SLs.’’ may be created by modifications of
inspecting the FOST are not considered Basis for proposed no significant plant configuration, including changes
an accident initiator or mitigating factor hazards consideration determination: in allowable modes of operation. The
in any previously evaluated accidents. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the proposed change does not involve any
Therefore, the proposed change does licensee has provided its analysis of the plant configuration modifications or
not involve a significant increase in the issue of no significant hazards changes to allowable modes of
probability or consequences of an consideration, which is presented operation.
accident previously evaluated. below: The proposed change to the SLMCPR
2. Does the proposed change create 1. Does the proposed change involve assures that safety criteria are
the possibility of a new or different kind a significant increase in the probability maintained for DNPS, Unit 2, Cycle 21.
of accident from any accident or consequences of an accident Therefore, the proposed change does
previously evaluated? previously evaluated? not create the possibility of a new or
Response: No. Response: No different kind of accident from any
The proposed change results in The probability of an evaluated previously evaluated.
changes to the existing diesel fuel oil accident is derived from the 3. Does the proposed change involve
testing program and the deletion of the probabilities of the individual a significant reduction in a margin of
[Surveillance Requirements] associated precursors to that accident. The safety?
with the performance of periodic consequences of an evaluated accident Response: No
draining and inspection of the FOSTs. are determined by the operability of The SLMCPR provides a margin of
No plant modifications are required to plant systems designed to mitigate those safety by ensuring that at least 99.9% of
support the proposed TS changes. There consequences. Limits have been the fuel rods do not experience
is no impact to plant structures, established consistent with NRC- transition boiling during normal
systems, or components, or in the approved methods to ensure that fuel operation and AOOs if the MCPR limit
design of the plant structures, systems, performance during normal, transient, is not violated. The proposed change
or components. and accident conditions is acceptable. will ensure the current level of fuel
Therefore, the proposed change does The proposed change conservatively protection is maintained by continuing
not create the possibility of a new or establishes the SLMCPR for DNPS, Unit to ensure that at least 99.9% of the fuel
different kind of accident from any 2, Cycle 21 such that the fuel is rods do not experience transition
previously evaluated. protected during normal operation and boiling during normal operation and
3. Does the proposed change involve during plant transients or anticipated AOOs if the MCPR limit is not violated.
a significant reduction in a margin of operational occurrences (AOOs). The proposed SLMCPR values were
safety? Changing the SLMCPR does not developed using NRC-approved
Response: No. increase the probability of an evaluated methods. Additionally, operational
limits will be established based on the reactor Primary Coolant System (PCS) tight characteristics of the primary
proposed SLMCPR to ensure that the following a design basis Loss of Coolant containment at the design basis accident
SLMCPR is not violated. This will Accident (LOCA) and to confine the pressure. The proposed changes for a
ensure that the fuel design safety postulated release of radioactive one-time extension of the Type A ILRT
criterion (i.e., that no more than 0.1% of material to within limits. The test does not affect the method for Type A,
the rods are expected to be in boiling interval associated with Type A ILRTs B, or C testing or the test acceptance
transition if the MCPR limit is not is not a precursor of any accident criteria.
violated) is met. previously evaluated. Type A ILRTs EGC has conducted a risk assessment
Therefore, the proposed change does provide assurance that the LSCS Unit 1 to determine the impact of a change to
not involve a significant reduction in a primary containment will not exceed the LSCS Unit 1 Type A ILRT schedule
margin of safety. allowable leakage rate values specified from a baseline ILRT frequency of three
The NRC staff has reviewed the in the TS and will continue to perform times in ten years to once in 15.67 years
licensee’s analysis and, based on this their design function following an (i.e., 15 years plus 8 months) for the risk
review, it appears that the three accident. The risk assessment of the measures of Large Early Release
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are proposed changes has concluded that Frequency (i.e., LERF), Total Population
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff there is an insignificant increase in total Dose, and Conditional Containment
proposes to determine that the population dose rate and an Failure Probability (i.e., CCFP). This
requested amendments involve no insignificant increase in the conditional assessment indicated that the proposed
significant hazards consideration. containment failure probability. LSCS ILRT interval extension has a
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Therefore, the proposed changes do minimal impact on public risk.
Fewell, Associate General Counsel, not involve a significant increase in the Therefore, the proposed changes do
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 probability or consequences of an not involve a significant reduction in a
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. accident previously evaluated. margin of safety.
NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs. 2. Does the change create the The NRC staff has reviewed the
possibility of a new or different kind of licensee’s analysis and, based on this
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, review, it appears that the three
accident from any accident previously
Docket No. 50–373, LaSalle County standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
evaluated?
Station, Unit 1, LaSalle County, Illinois satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
Response: No
Date of amendment request: June 18, The proposed changes for a one-time proposes to determine that the
2007. extension of the Type A ILRT for LSCS requested amendments involve no
Description of amendment request: Unit 1 will not affect the control significant hazards consideration.
The proposed amendment would revise parameters governing unit operation or Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J.
technical specification TS 5.5.13, the response of plant equipment to Fewell, Associate General Counsel,
‘‘Primary Containment Leakage Rate transient and accident conditions. The Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Testing Program,’’ to reflect a one-time proposed changes do not introduce any Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
extension of the LaSalle County Station new equipment, modes of system NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.
(LSCS), Unit 1, primary containment operation or failure mechanisms. Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Type A Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) Therefore, the proposed changes do Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353,
date for the current requirement of no not create the possibility of a new or Limerick Generating Station, Units 1
later than June 13, 2009, prior to startup different kind of accident from any and 2, Montgomery County,
following the thirteenth LSCS Unit 1 previously evaluated. Pennsylvania
refueling outage (L1R13). 3. Does the change involve a
Basis for proposed no significant significant reduction in a margin of Date of amendment request:
hazards consideration determination: safety? November 27, 2006.
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Response: No Description of amendment request:
licensee has provided its analysis of the LSCS Unit 1 is a General Electric The proposed amendments would
issue of no significant hazards BWR/5 plant with a Mark II primary modify various technical specification
consideration, which is presented containment. The Mark II primary (TS) requirements for emergency diesel
below: containment consists of two generators (EDGs). Specifically, the
1. Does the change involve a compartments, the drywell and the licensee stated that the proposed
significant increase in the probability or suppression chamber. The drywell has changes would eliminate several
consequences of an accident previously the shape of a truncated cone, and is accelerated tests and a test table, modify
evaluated? located above the cylindrically shaped acceptance criteria for fast start and load
Response: No suppression chamber. The drywell floor rejection tests, and also, eliminate the
The proposed changes will revise separates the drywell and the EDG failure report. The proposed
LSCS, Unit 1, TS 5.5.13, ‘‘Primary suppression chamber. The primary changes are consistent with the Nuclear
Containment Leakage Rate Testing containment is penetrated by access, Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s)
Program,’’ to reflect a one-time piping and electrical penetrations. regulatory guidance presented in
extension of the primary containment The integrity of the primary Generic Letter 93–05, ‘‘Line-Item
Type A Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) containment penetrations and isolation Technical Specifications Improvement
date to ‘‘prior to startup following valves is verified through Type B and to Reduce Surveillance Requirements
L1R13.’’ The current Type A ILRT Type C local leak rate tests (LLRTs) and for Testing During Power Operation,’’
interval of 15 years, based on past the overall leak tight integrity of the Generic Letter 94–01, ‘‘Removal of
performance, would be extended on a primary containment is verified by a Accelerated Testing and Special
one-time basis by approximately 5% of Type A ILRT, as required by 10 CFR 50, Reporting Requirements for Emergency
the current interval. Appendix J, ‘‘Primary Reactor Diesel Generators,’’ and NUREG–1433,
The function of the primary Containment Leakage Testing for Water- Rev. 3.1, ‘‘Standard Technical
containment is to isolate and contain Cooled Power Reactors.’’ These tests are Specifications, General Electric Plants,
fission products released from the performed to verify the essentially leak BWR/4.’’
Basis for proposed no significant criteria, (2) modify the accelerated impact [the] accident analyses
hazards consideration determination: testing schedules, or (3) eliminate a previously evaluated in the Updated
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the reporting requirement. The change to Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
licensee has provided its analysis of the the test acceptance criteria is based on In the best estimate case (normal plant
issue of no significant hazards the recommendations of Regulatory conditions; all control systems
consideration, which is presented Guide 1.9, and the change to the functioning per design), the pressurizer
below: reporting requirement is enveloped by power operated relief valves (PORV)
1. Do the proposed changes involve a other NRC reporting requirements. The and the steam generator safety valves
significant increase in the probability or other changes are consistent with NRC are not challenged following the turbine
consequences of an accident previously guidance, and reduce unnecessary trip without reactor trip. Consequently,
evaluated? testing and improve EDG reliability. the proposed change does not adversely
Response: No. Requirements to assure that a common affect the probability of a small break
The proposed changes are associated mode failure has not affected the loss of coolant accident due to a stuck-
with the testing and reporting remaining operable EDGs have been open PORV. The sensitivity study that
requirements of the eight (four on each maintained. The existing routine testing assessed the affects of degraded control
unit) Emergency Diesel Generators frequency, unaffected by these changes, systems found that a failure of all
(EDGs). The changes will eliminate has been shown to be adequate for condenser steam dump valves resulted
unnecessary EDG testing requirements assuring the EDGs are operable based on in challenging the PORVs and the steam
that contribute to potential mechanical operating experience. The proposed generator (SG) safety valves. However,
degradation of the EDGs. The changes changes do not impact the assumptions overfilling of the pressurizer will not
are based on the NRC guidance and of any design basis accident, and do not occur and this Condition 2 event will
recommendations provided in Generic alter assumptions relative to the not initiate a Condition 3 event. The
Letter 93–05 or Generic Letter 94–01, or mitigation of an accident or transient challenge to the PORVs with all steam
are consistent with NUREG–1433. The event. dump banks failed does not violate
change to the reporting requirement is Therefore, the proposed changes do design or licensing criteria. Therefore,
administrative in nature. not involve a significant reduction in a the proposed setpoint change does not
The probability of an accident is not margin of safety. significantly increase the probability or
increased by these changes because the The NRC staff has reviewed the consequences of an accident previously
EDGs are not assumed to be initiators of licensee’s analysis and, based on this evaluated.
any design basis event. Additionally, review, it appears that the three 2. The proposed changes do not create
the proposed changes do not involve standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are the possibility of a new or different kind
any physical changes to plant systems, satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff of accident from any accident
structures, or components (SSC), or the proposes to determine that the previously evaluated.
manner in which these SSC are amendment request involves no The proposed setpoint change does
operated, maintained, or controlled. The significant hazards consideration. not create the possibility of a new or
consequences of an accident will not be Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley different kind of accident than any
increased because the changes to the Fewell, Associate General Counsel, accident previously evaluated in the
EDGs and associated support systems Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 FSAR. No new accident scenarios,
still provide a high degree of assurance Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. failure mechanisms or limiting single
that their operability is maintained. NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. failures are introduced as a result of the
Therefore, the proposed changes do Chernoff. proposed change. The proposed
not involve a significant increase in the Technical Specification changes have
FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. no adverse effects on any safety-related
probability or consequences of an
50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, system and do not challenge the
accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the Rockingham County, New Hampshire performance or integrity of any safety-
possibility of a new or different kind of Date of amendment request: March related system. The revised setpoint for
accident from any accident previously 29, 2007. the P–9 function ensures that accident/
evaluated? Description of amendment request: transient analyses acceptance criteria
Response: No. The proposed amendment would revise continue to be met. This change makes
The proposed changes do not alter the the Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 no modifications to the plant that would
physical design, safety limits, or safety Technical Specifications to increase the introduce new accident causal
analysis assumptions, associated with power level required for a reactor trip mechanisms and has no affect on how
the operation of the plant. Accordingly, following a turbine trip (P–9 setpoint). the trip functions operate upon
the proposed changes do not introduce Basis for proposed no significant actuation. Therefore, the proposed
any new accident initiators, nor do they hazards consideration determination: changes do not create the possibility of
reduce or adversely affect the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the a new or different kind of accident from
capabilities of any plant structure or licensee has provided its analysis of the any previously evaluated.
system in the performance of their issue of no significant hazards 3. The proposed changes do not
safety function. consideration, which is presented involve a significant reduction in the
Therefore, the proposed changes do below: margin of safety.
not create the possibility of a new or 1. The proposed changes do not The proposed Technical Specification
different kind of accident from any involve a significant increase in the changes do not involve a significant
previously evaluated. probability or consequences of an reduction in a margin of safety. The
3. Do the proposed changes involve a accident previously evaluated. analyses supporting the proposed
significant reduction in a margin of The analysis of the proposed change change to the P–9 setpoint demonstrate
safety? included an evaluation of loss of load/ that margin exists between the setpoint
Response: No. turbine trip transient. With systems and the corresponding safety analysis
The proposed changes to the EDGs functioning as designed, the proposed limits. The calculations are based on
either: (1) Modify the test acceptance change to the P–9 setpoint does not plant instrumentation and calibration/
functional test methods and include of occurrence or consequences of an different kind of accident from any
allowances associated with the setpoint accident previously evaluated? accident previously evaluated because
change. The results of analyses and Response: No. the associated components, i.e., the new
evaluations supporting the proposed The proposed change consists of a sump level instruments, the new
change demonstrate acceptance criteria revision to the Technical Specifications strainers, and the two flow paths, are
continue to be met. The reactor trip on (TS) for post accident monitoring (PAM) components that will not initiate any
turbine trip provides additional instrumentation to include new accident. The proposed TS changes
protection and conservatism beyond containment recirculation sump level associated with these components will
that required for protection of public instrumentation, a revision to the TS for not cause them to be operated in any
health and safety; the safety analyses in Emergency Core cooling System (ECCS) manner not previously evaluated for the
chapter 15 of the UFSAR do not take to replace the term ‘‘trash rack and specific components or for similar
credit for this reactor trip. Therefore, the screen’’ with the term ‘‘strainer,’’ and a components, or cause them to become
proposed changes do not involve a revision to the TS for containment other than passive components.
significant reduction in the margin of recirculation drains to add two flow Therefore, the proposed change will
safety. paths credited in the evaluation of the not create the possibility of a new or
The NRC staff has reviewed the effects of post-accident debris on the different kind of accident from any
licensee’s analysis and, based on this containment recirculation functions previously evaluated.
review, it appears that the three pursuant to Nuclear Regulatory 3. Does the proposed change involve
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Commission Generic Letter 2004–02. a significant reduction in a margin of
The proposed TS revisions will not safety?
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
increase the probability of an accident Response: No.
proposes to determine that the
because the associated components, i.e., The margin of safety associated with
amendment request involves no
the new sump level instruments, the the proposed TS revisions involves the
significant hazards consideration.
new strainers, and the two flow paths, ability of the associated components,
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross,
are not, and will not become, accident i.e., the new sump level instruments,
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O.
initiators. The activities involving these the new strainers, and the two flow
Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408–0420.
components pursuant to the proposed paths, to assure the ECCS and
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K.
TS revisions consist of implementing containment spray recirculation
Chernoff.
Surveillance Requirements for the new function can be adequately
Indiana Michigan Power Company, sump level instruments and flow paths accomplished. The TS changes
Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald and actions to be taken if these associated with the new sump level
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, components are inoperable. These instrumentation and the recirculation
Berrien County, Michigan activities will not increase the [flow paths] will provide increased
likelihood of an accident. The TS assurance that this function can be
Date of amendment request: June 27,
change associated with the sump fulfilled. The TS change associated with
2007.
strainers is editorial in that it reflects the sump strainers is editorial and does
Description of amendment request:
the terminology that has been applied to not affect this function.
The proposed amendment would revise
new pocket strainers that continue to Therefore, the proposed change will
Technical Specifications (TS) 3.3.3,
perform the trash rack and screen not involve a significant reduction in
‘‘Post Accident Monitoring (PAM)
functions. The change in terminology the margin of safety.
Instrumentation,’’ to include
will not result in any new activities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
containment recirculation sump level The proposed TS revision will not (NRC) staff has reviewed the licensee’s
instrumentation which will be used for increase the consequences of an analysis and, based on this review, it
indication of recirculation sump strainer accident because the associated appears that the three standards of 10
blockage. Additionally, the amendment components all provide mitigative CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the
would revise TS 3.5.2, ‘‘ECCS functions for an accident, and their NRC staff proposes to determine that the
[Emergency Core Cooling System]— ability to perform their mitigative amendment requests involve no
Operating,’’ by replacing the term ‘‘trash functions is not reduced by the significant hazards consideration.
racks and screens’’ with the more associated TS changes. The TS changes Attorney for licensee: Kimberly
descriptive term ‘‘strainers.’’ Finally, the associated with the new sump level Harshaw, Esquire, One Cook Place,
amendment would revise TS 3.6.14, instrumentation and the recirculation Bridgman, MI 49106.
‘‘Containment Recirculation Drains,’’ to [flow paths] will provide increased NRC Acting Branch Chief: Travis
include Limiting Conditions for assurance that these components will be Tate.
Operation, Actions, and Surveillance available to perform their mitigative
Requirements to ensure the operability Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station
function if needed. The TS change (NMPNS), LLC, Docket No. 50–410, Nine
of flow paths credited in the evaluation associated with the sump strainers is
of potential adverse effects of post- Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit No. 2
editorial and does not affect the (NMP2), Oswego County, New York
accident debris on the containment mitigative capability of the screens.
recirculation function pursuant to NRC Therefore, the proposed change will Date of amendment request: May 31,
Generic Letter 2004–02. not involve a significant increase in the 2007.
Basis for proposed no significant probability or consequences of an Description of amendment request:
hazards consideration determination: accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment would revise
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 2. Does the proposed change create the accident source term used in the
licensee has provided its analysis of the the possibility of a new or different kind NMP2 design basis radiological
issue of no significant hazards of accident from any accident consequence analyses in accordance
consideration, which is presented previously evaluated? with Title 10 of the Code of Federal
below: Response: No. Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50.67. The
1. Does the proposed change involve The proposed TS revisions will not revised accident source term replaces
a significant increase in the probability create the possibility of a new or the current methodology that is based
on TID–14844, ‘‘Calculation of Distance the fuel. It does, however, better prior to a postulated accident. Since
Factors for Power and Test Reactor represent the physical characteristics of systems, structures, and components are
Sites,’’ with the alternative source term the release, so that appropriate operated essentially no differently after
(AST) methodology described in mitigation techniques may be applied. the AST implementation, no new failure
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, Implementation of the AST has been modes are created by this proposed
‘‘Alternative Source Terms for incorporated in the analyses for the change.
Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at limiting DBAs at NMP2. Therefore, the proposed changes do
Nuclear Power Reactors.’’ The The structures, systems and not create the possibility of a new or
amendment request is for full components affected by the proposed different kind of accident from any
implementation of the AST as described change mitigate the consequences of accident previously evaluated.
in RG 1.183, with the exception that accidents after the accident has been 3. Does the proposed change involve
TID–14844 will continue to be used as initiated. Application of the AST does a significant reduction in a margin of
the radiation dose basis for equipment result in changes to NMP2 Updated safety?
qualification and vital area access. Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Response: No.
Proposed changes include the following: functions (e.g., Standby Liquid Control The changes proposed are associated
Revision of the Technical Specification system [SLCS]). As a condition of with a new licensing basis for analysis
(TS) definition of Dose Equivalent I–131 application of AST, NMPNS is of NMP2 DBAs. Approval of the
to be consistent with the AST analyses; proposing to use the [SLCS] to control licensing basis change from the original
TS changes that reflect revised design the suppression pool pH following a source term to the AST is being
requirements regarding the use of the LOCA. These changes do not require requested. The results of the accident
standby liquid control system (SLCS) to any physical modifications to the plant. analyses performed in support of the
buffer the suppression pool pH to As a result, the proposed changes do not proposed changes are subject to revised
prevent iodine re-evolution following a involve a revision to the parameters or acceptance criteria. The limiting DBAs
postulated design basis loss-of-coolant conditions that could contribute to the have been analyzed using conservative
accident (LOCA); revisions to the TS initiation of a DBA discussed in Chapter methodologies, in accordance with the
operability requirements for the control 15 of the NMP2 USAR. Since design guidance contained in Regulatory Guide
room envelope filtration system and the basis accident initiators are not being 1.183, to ensure that analyzed events are
control room envelope air conditioning altered by adoption of the AST, the
bounding and that safety margin has not
system, consistent with the assumptions probability of an accident previously
been reduced. The dose consequences of
contained in the AST fuel-handling evaluated is not affected.
Plant-specific AST radiological these limiting events are within the
accident (FHA) analysis; and credit for acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR
operation of the residual heat removal analyses have been performed and,
based on the results of these analyses, 50.67 and Regulatory Guide 1.183.
system in the drywell spray mode for Thus, the proposed changes continue to
the post-LOCA removal of airborne it has been demonstrated that the dose
consequences of the limiting events ensure that the doses at the exclusion
elemental iodine and particulates from
considered in the analyses are within area boundary and low population zone
the drywell atmosphere. Because
the acceptance criteria provided by the boundary, as well as in the control
NMPNS is considering an extended
NRC for use with the AST. These room, are within corresponding
power uprate (EPU) project that would
criteria are presented in 10 CFR 50.67 regulatory criteria.
increase the maximum licensed reactor
and Regulatory Guide 1.183. Even Therefore, by meeting the applicable
core power level to 3,988 megawatts
though the AST dose limits are not regulatory criteria for AST, it is
thermal (MWt), the AST analyses have
been performed using a bounding core directly comparable to the previously concluded that the proposed changes do
isotopic inventory that is based on specified whole body and thyroid dose not involve a significant reduction in a
operation at 3,988 MWt in lieu of the guidelines of General Design Criterion margin of safety.
currently licensed power of 3,467 MWt. 19 and 10 CFR 100.11, the results of the The NRC staff has reviewed the
Basis for proposed no significant AST analyses have demonstrated that licensee’s analysis and, based on this
hazards consideration determination: the 10 CFR 50.67 limits are satisfied. review, it appears that the three
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Therefore, it is concluded that adoption standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
licensee has provided its analysis of the of the AST does not involve a satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
issue of no significant hazards significant increase in the consequences proposes to determine that the
consideration, which is presented of an accident previously evaluated. amendment request involves no
below: Based on the above discussion, it is significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve concluded that the proposed changes do Attorney for licensee: Mark J.
a significant increase in the probability not involve a significant increase in the Wetterhahn, Esquire, Winston & Strawn,
or consequences of an accident probability or consequences of an 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC
previously evaluated? accident previously evaluated. 20006.
Response: No. 2. Does the proposed change create NRC Branch Chief: Mark G. Kowal.
Adoption of the AST and those plant the possibility of a new or different kind Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Docket No.
systems affected by implementing AST of accident from any accident 50–133, Humboldt Bay Power Plant
do not initiate DBAs [design-basis previously evaluated? (HBPP), Unit 3 Humboldt County,
accidents]. The AST does not affect the Response: No.
California
design or manner in which the facility Implementation of AST and the
is operated; rather, for postulated proposed changes does not alter or Date of amendment request: April 4,
accidents, the AST is an input to involve any design basis accident 2007.
calculations that evaluate the initiators. These changes do not involve Description of amendment request:
radiological consequences. The AST any physical changes to the plant and The licensee has proposed amending
does not by itself affect the post- do not affect the design function or the existing license to allow the results
accident plant response or the actual mode of operations of systems, of near-term surveys, performed on a
pathway of the radiation released from structures, or components in the facility portion of the plant site, to be included
in the eventual Final Status Survey 77 Beale Street, B30A, San Francisco, Modes 5 or 6. It also eliminates
(FSS) for license termination. CA. containment integrity TS requirements
Basis for proposed no significant NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson. while handling irradiated fuel and
hazards consideration determination: during core alterations. The equipment
STP Nuclear Operating Company,
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the affected by the proposed changes is
Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South
licensee has provided its analysis of the mitigative in nature and relied upon
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda
issue of no significant hazards after an accident has been initiated. The
County, Texas
consideration, which is presented affected systems are not accident
below: Date of amendment request: March initiators; and application of the AST
(1) Does the change involve a 22, 2007. methodology is not an initiator of a
significant increase in the probability or Description of amendment request: design basis accident.
consequences of an accident previously The proposed amendment supports full- Elimination of the requirement to
evaluated? scope implementation of an alternative suspend operations involving positive
Response: No. source term (AST) methodology, in reactivity additions that could result in
The proposed change would allow accordance with Section 50.67, loss of required SHUTDOWN MARGIN
survey results for a specific area within ‘‘Accident source term,’’ of Title 10 of or required boron concentration if the
the licensed site area, performed prior to the Code of Federal Regulations (10 control room ventilation system is
Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) Unit CFR) with the exception that Technical inoperable in Modes 5 or 6 does not
3 decommissioning and dismantlement Information Document (TID) 14844, increase the probability of an accident
activities, to be used in the overall ‘‘Calculation of Distance Factors for because the proposed change does not
licensed site area Final Status Survey Power and Test Reactor Sites,’’ will affect the design and operational
(FSS) for license termination. The FSS continue to be used as the radiation controls to prevent dilution events.
will be performed following completion dose basis for equipment qualification. These same design and operational
of HBPP Unit 3 decommissioning and Basis for proposed no significant controls prevent a loss of SHUTDOWN
dismantlement activities. This proposed hazards consideration determination: MARGIN or a boron dilution event so
change would not change plant systems As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the that radiological consequences from
or accident analysis, and as such, would licensee has provided its analysis of the these events are precluded.
issue of no significant hazards The proposed changes do not involve
not affect initiators of analyzed events
consideration, which is presented physical modifications to plant
or assumed mitigation of accidents.
below: equipment and do not change the
Therefore, the proposed change does not
1. The proposed changes do not operational methods or procedures used
increase the probability or consequences
involve a significant increase in the for moving irradiated fuel assemblies.
of an accident previously evaluated.
probability or consequences of an The proposed changes do not affect any
(2) Does the change create the of the parameters or conditions that
accident previously evaluated.
possibility of a new or different kind of could contribute to the initiation of any
The implementation of AST
accident from any accident evaluated? accidents. Relaxation of operability
assumptions has been evaluated in
Response: No. requirements during the specified
revisions to the analyses of the
The proposed change does not conditions will not significantly
following limiting DBAs [design-basis
involve a physical alteration to the plant increase the probability of occurrence of
accidents].
or require existing equipment to be • Loss-of-Coolant Accident. an accident previously analyzed. Since
operated in a manner different from the • Fuel Handling Accident. design basis accident initiators are not
present design. Implementation of a • Control Rod Ejection Accident. being altered by adoption of the AST,
cross contamination prevention and • Locked Rotor Accident. the probability of an accident previously
monitoring plan will be done in • Main Steam Line Break Accident. evaluated is not affected.
accordance with plant procedures and • Steam Generator Tube Rupture Administrative changes to delete a
licensing bases documents. Therefore, Accident. footnote from Technical Specification
the proposed change does not create the Based upon the results of these surveillance requirement 4.7.7.e.3) and
possibility of a new or different kind of analyses and evaluations, it has been a note from ACTION 20 of Technical
accident from any accident evaluated. demonstrated that, with the requested Specification Table 3.3–3, in which the
(3) Does the change involve a changes, the dose consequences of these provisions of the notes have expired,
significant reduction in a margin of limiting events satisfies the dose limits does not impact the probability or
safety? in 10 CFR 50.67 and are within the consequences of an accident previously
Response: No. regulatory guidance provided by the evaluated.
The proposed change has no effect on NRC for use with the AST methodology. Based on the above discussion, the
existing plant equipment, operating The AST is an input to calculations proposed changes do not involve a
practices, or safety analysis used to evaluate the consequences of an significant increase in the probability or
assumptions. Therefore, the proposed accident and does not affect the plant consequences of an accident previously
change does not involve a significant response or the actual pathway of the evaluated.
reduction in a margin of safety. activity released from the fuel. 2. The proposed changes do not create
The NRC staff has reviewed the Therefore, it is concluded that AST does the possibility of a new or different kind
licensee’s analysis and, based on this not involve a significant increase in the of accident from any accident
review, it appears that the three consequences of an accident previously previously evaluated.
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are evaluated. The proposed changes do not involve
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Implementation of AST provides for a physical change. The change will
proposes to determine that the elimination of the Fuel Handling allow the automatic start feature of
amendment request involves no Building ventilation system filtration TS systems no longer credited in the
significant hazards consideration. [Technical Specification] requirements accident analyses for mitigation to be
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jennifer K. and elimination of Control Room disabled through the STPNOC [STP
Post, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, ventilation filtration TS requirements in Nuclear Operating Company]
modification process. Implementation of acceptance criteria as specified in RG Basis for proposed no significant
AST provides increased operating 1.183. The dose consequences of these hazards consideration determination:
margins for filtration system DBAs remain within the acceptance As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
efficiencies. Application of AST criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and licensee has provided its analysis of the
provides for relaxation of certain RG 1.183. issue of no significant hazards
Control Room ventilation system Elimination of the requirement to consideration, which is presented
filtration requirements. The Fuel suspend operations involving positive below:
Handling Building filtration and holdup reactivity additions that could result in (1) Does the proposed change involve
is no longer credited in the AST loss of required SHUTDOWN MARGIN a significant increase in the probability
analyses. Therefore, the Fuel Handling or required boron concentration if the or consequences of an accident
Building Exhaust Air Ventilation system control room ventilation system is previously evaluated?
is no longer required in the Technical inoperable in Mode 5 or Mode 6 does Response: No.
Specifications. It also relaxes not result in a reduction in a margin to The proposed change is an
containment integrity requirements safety because adequate measures exist administrative editorial change to
while handling irradiated fuel and to preclude radiological consequences remove unnecessary information from a
during core alterations. Elimination of from these events. surveillance requirement. It will not
the requirement to suspend operations The proposed changes continue to affect how any system, structure, or
involving positive reactivity additions ensure that the doses at the exclusion component is designed or operated and
that could result in loss of required area boundary (EAB) and low so has no potential to affect the
SHUTDOWN MARGIN or required population zone boundary (LPZ), as mitigation of an accident. The change
boron concentration if the control room well as the Control Room and Technical does not affect an initiator of any
ventilation system is inoperable in Support Center, are within the specified accident previously evaluated.
Mode 5 or Mode 6 does not create the regulatory limits. Therefore, the change does not involve
possibility of a new or different kind of Administrative changes to delete a a significant increase in the probability
accident because these events have footnote from Technical Specification or consequences of an accident
already been analyzed in the safety surveillance requirement 4.7.7.e.3) and previously evaluated.
analysis with a conclusion that adequate a note from ACTION 20 of Technical (2) Does the proposed change create
measures exist to prevent these events. Specification Table 3.3–3, in which the the possibility of a new or different kind
Similarly, the proposed changes do provisions of the notes have expired, of accident from any accident
not require any physical changes to any does not impact the margin of safety. previously evaluated?
structures, systems or components Therefore, based on the above Response: No.
involved in the mitigation of any discussion, the proposed changes do not The proposed change is an
accidents. Therefore, no new initiators involve a significant reduction in a administrative editorial change to
or precursors of a new or different kind margin of safety. remove unnecessary information from a
of accident are created. New equipment The NRC staff has reviewed the surveillance requirement. It will not
or personnel failure modes that might licensee’s analysis and, based on this affect how any system, structure, or
initiate a new type of accident are not review, it appears that the standards of component is designed or operated or
created as a result of the proposed 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, involve any new or different plant
changes. the NRC staff proposes to determine that configurations. Therefore, the change
Administrative changes to delete a the request for amendments involves no does not create the possibility of a new
footnote from Technical Specification significant hazards consideration. or different kind of accident previously
surveillance requirement 4.7.7.e.3) and Attorney for licensee: A.H. Gutterman, evaluated.
a note from ACTION 20 of Technical Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111 (3) Does the proposed change involve
Specification Table 3.3–3, in which the Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., a significant reduction in a margin of
provisions of the notes have expired, Washington, DC 20004. safety?
does not create the possibility of a new NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz. Response: No.
or different kind of accident from any The proposed change is editorial and
STP Nuclear Operating Company,
accident previously evaluated. administrative and consequently has no
Based on the above discussion, the Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda effect on the margin of safety.
proposed changes do not create the The NRC staff has reviewed the
possibility of a new or different kind of County, Texas
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
accident from any accident previously Date of amendment request: May 21, review, it appears that the standards of
evaluated. 2007. 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore,
3. The proposed change does not Description of amendment request: the NRC staff proposes to determine that
involve a significant reduction in a The license amendment request the request for amendments involves no
margin of safety. proposes revising the Technical significant hazards consideration.
Approval of a change from the Specification (TS) Surveillance Attorney for licensee: A.H. Gutterman,
original source term methodology (i.e., Requirement (SR) 4.5.2.d for the Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111
TID 14844) to an AST methodology, inspection of Emergency Core Cooling Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
consistent with the guidance in RG System (ECCS) sumps for consistency Washington, DC 20004.
[NRC Regulatory Guide] 1.183, will not with the new STP sump design. SR NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.
result in a significant reduction in the 4.5.2.d includes a noncomprehensive
margin of safety. The safety margins and parenthetical list of sump components, Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No.
analytical conservatisms associated with some of which have been removed in 50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1,
the AST methodology have been the new sump screen design. The Rhea County, Tennessee
evaluated and were found acceptable. licensee proposes an administrative Date of amendment request: June 8,
The results of the revised DBA analyses, change to delete the parenthetical 2007.
performed in support of the proposed reference to sump components in its Description of amendment request:
changes, are subject to specific entirety. The proposed amendment would revise
the technical specifications for Watts ESFAS signals. The RTS and ESFAS requirements of the instrumentation. No
Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 (WBN) to will remain highly reliable and the changes are required to accident
allow relaxations of various Reactor proposed changes will not result in a analysis assumptions. The changes do
Trip System (RTS) and Engineered significant increase in the risk of plant not introduce different malfunctions,
Safety Feature Actuation System operation. This is demonstrated by failure modes, or limiting single
(ESFAS) logic completion times, bypass showing that the impact on plant safety failures. The changes to the completion
test times, allowable outage times, and as measured by core damage frequency time, bypass test time, and surveillance
surveillance testing intervals. The [CDF] is less than 1.0E–06 per year and frequency do not change any existing
proposed changes implement several the impact on large early release accident scenarios nor create any new or
Technical Specifications Task Force frequency [LERF] is less than 1.0E–07
different accident scenarios.
travelers, which the NRC staff has per year. In addition, for the completion
previously reviewed and approved for time change, the incremental Therefore, this change does not create
incorporation into the Standard conditional core damage probabilities the possibility of a new or different kind
Technical Specifications for [ICCDP] and incremental conditional of accident from any previously
Westinghouse plants. large early release probabilities evaluated.
Basis for proposed no significant [ICLERP] are less than 5.0E–07 and 3. Does the proposed change involve
hazards consideration determination: 5.0E–08, respectively. These changes a significant reduction in a margin of
As required by Title 10 of the Code of meet the acceptance criteria in safety?
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.91(a), Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177.
the licensee has provided its analysis of Therefore, since the RTS and ESFAS The proposed changes do not alter the
the issue of no significant hazards will continue to perform their functions manner in which safety limits, limiting
consideration, which is presented with high reliability as originally safety system settings, or limiting
below: assumed, and the increase in risk as conditions for operation are determined.
1. Does the proposed change involve measured by CDF, LERF, ICCDP, and The safety analysis acceptance criteria
a significant increase in the probability ICLERP is within the acceptance criteria are not impacted by these changes.
or consequences of an accident of existing regulatory guidance, there Redundant RTS and ESFAS trains are
previously evaluated? will not be a significant increase in the maintained, and diversity with regard to
The proposed changes do not result in consequences of any accidents. the signals that provide reactor trip and
any modifications to RTS and ESFAS The proposed changes do not engineered safety features actuation is
hardware, design requirements, or adversely affect accident initiators or also maintained. All signals credited as
functions. No system operational precursors nor alter the design primary or secondary and all operator
parameters are affected. The protection assumptions, conditions, or actions credited in the accident analyses
system will continue to perform the configuration of the facility or the
intended design functions consistent will remain the same. The proposed
manner in which the plant is operated
with the design bases and accident changes will not result in plant
and maintained. The proposed changes
analyses. The proposed changes will not operation in a configuration outside the
do not alter or prevent the ability of
modify any system interfaces and, structures, systems, and components design basis. The calculated impact on
therefore, could not increase the from performing their intended function risk is insignificant and meets the
likelihood of an accident described in to mitigate the consequences of an acceptance criteria contained in
the UFSAR [Updated Facility Safety initiating event within the assumed Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177.
Analysis Report]. The proposed acceptance limits. The proposed Although there was no attempt to
amendment will not change, degrade or changes do not affect the source term, quantify any positive human factors
prevent actions, or alter any containment isolation, or radiological benefit due to increased completion
assumptions previously made in release assumptions used in evaluating time, bypass test time, and surveillance
evaluating the radiological the radiological consequences of an frequencies, it is expected that there
consequences of an accident described accident previously evaluated. Further, would be a net benefit due to a reduced
in the UFSAR. the proposed changes do not increase potential for spurious reactor trips and
Plant-specific evaluations confirm the the types or amounts of radioactive actuations associated with testing.
applicability of the [Westinghouse effluent that may be released offsite, nor
Topical Report] WCAP–14333 and Therefore, it is concluded that this
significantly increase individual or
WCAP–15376 analyses to WBN. change does not involve a significant
cumulative occupational/public
Implementation of the approved radiation exposures. The proposed reduction in the margin of safety.
changes is in accordance with the changes are consistent with the safety The NRC staff has reviewed the
conditions of the NRC safety evaluations analysis assumptions and resultant licensee’s analysis and, based on this
for these reports and will result in an consequences. review, it appears that the three
insignificant risk impact. Therefore, this change does not standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
The proposed changes to the increase the probability or consequences satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
completion time, bypass test time, and of an accident previously evaluated. proposes to determine that the
surveillance frequencies reduce the 2. Does the proposed change create amendment request involves no
potential for inadvertent reactor trips the possibility of a new or different kind significant hazards consideration.
and spurious actuations and, therefore, of accident from any accident
do not increase the probability of any previously evaluated? Attorney for licensee: General
accident previously evaluated. The The proposed amendment does not Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
proposed changes to the allowed require any design changes, physical 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A,
completion time, bypass test time, and modifications or changes in normal Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
surveillance frequencies do not change operation of the RTS and ESFAS NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
the response of the plant to any instrumentation. Existing setpoints will
accidents and have an insignificant be maintained. The changes do not
impact on the reliability of the RTS and affect functional performance
Previously Published Notices of and Opportunity for A Hearing in Amendment No.: 177.
Consideration of Issuance of connection with these actions was Facility Operating License No. NPF–
Amendments to Facility Operating published in the Federal Register as 62: The amendment revised the
Licenses, Proposed No Significant indicated. Technical Specifications and License.
Hazards Consideration Determination, Unless otherwise indicated, the Date of initial notice in Federal
and Opportunity for a Hearing Commission has determined that these Register: April 10, 2007 (72 FR 17944).
amendments satisfy the criteria for The Commission’s related evaluation of
The following notices were previously
categorical exclusion in accordance the amendment is contained in a Safety
published as separate individual with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant Evaluation dated July 5, 2007.
notices. The notice content was the to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental No significant hazards consideration
same as above. They were published as impact statement or environmental comments received: No.
individual notices either because time assessment need be prepared for these
did not allow the Commission to wait Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., et
amendments. If the Commission has
for this biweekly notice or because the al., Docket No. 50–423, Millstone Power
prepared an environmental assessment
action involved exigent circumstances. under the special circumstances Station, Unit No. 3, New London
They are repeated here because the provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has County, Connecticut
biweekly notice lists all amendments made a determination based on that Date of application for amendment:
issued or proposed to be issued assessment, it is so indicated. June 14, 2006, as supplemented by
involving no significant hazards For further details with respect to the letters dated November 27, 2006 and
consideration. action see (1) the applications for January 17, 2007.
For details, see the individual notice amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) Brief description of amendment: The
in the Federal Register on the day and the Commission’s related letter, Safety amendment revised the technical
page cited. This notice does not extend Evaluation and/or Environmental specifications (TSs) to allow a one-time
the notice period of the original notice. Assessment as indicated. All of these change in the Appendix J, Type A,
STP Nuclear Operating Company, items are available for public inspection Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test
Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South at the Commission’s Public Document from the required 10 years to 15 years.
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda Room (PDR), located at One White Flint Date of issuance: June 29, 2007.
County, Texas North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Effective date: As of the date of
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, issuance and shall be implemented
Date of amendment request: June 6, Maryland. Publicly available records within 30 days from the date of
2006. will be accessible from the Agencywide issuance.
Brief description of amendment Documents Access and Management Amendment No. 239.
request: The proposed amendments Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Facility Operating License No. NPF–
would provide a new action for selected Reading Room on the internet at the 49: Amendment revised the technical
Technical Specifications (TSs) limiting NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ specifications.
conditions for operation to permit reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not Date of initial notice in Federal
extension of the completion times of have access to ADAMS or if there are Register: September 12, 2006 (71 FR
action requirements, provided risk is problems in accessing the documents 53717). The November 27, 2006 and
assessed and managed. A new program, located in ADAMS, contact the PDR January 17, 2007, letters provided
the Configuration Risk Management Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209, clarifying information that did not
Program, would be added to the (301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to change the initial proposed no
Administrative Controls of TSs. pdr@nrc.gov. significant hazards consideration
Date of publication of individual determination or expand the application
notice in Federal Register: June 12, AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket beyond the scope of the original Federal
2007. No. 50–461, Clinton Power Station, Unit Register notice. The Commission’s
Expiration date of individual notice: No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois related evaluation of the amendment is
July 12, 2007. Date of application for amendment: contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to November 13, 2006. June 29, 2007.
Facility Operating Licenses Brief description of amendment: The No significant hazards consideration
proposed amendment revises the comments received: No.
During the period since publication of technical specification (TS) testing
the last biweekly notice, the Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
frequency for the surveillance
Commission has issued the following Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353,
requirement (SR) in TS 3.2.4, ‘‘Control
amendments. The Commission has Limerick Generating Station, Units 1
Rod Scram Times.’’ Specifically, the
determined for each of these and 2, Montgomery County,
proposed change would revise the
amendments that the application Pennsylvania
frequency for SR 3.1.4.2, control rod
complies with the standards and scram time testing, from ‘‘120 days Date of application for amendment:
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act cumulative operation in MODE 1,’’ to June 2, 2006.
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the ‘‘200 days cumulative operation in Brief description of amendment: The
Commission’s rules and regulations. MODE 1.’’ This operating license amendment revises the Technical
The Commission has made appropriate improvement was made available by the Specifications (TSs) to incorporate
findings as required by the Act and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on revised requirements in Title 10 of the
Commission’s rules and regulations in August 23, 2004, as part of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in consolidated line item improvement Part 20. Specifically, the amendment
the license amendment. process. revises the definitions for Members of

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Date of issuance: July 5, 2007. the Public and Unrestricted Area, adds
Amendment to Facility Operating Effective date: As of the date of a definition for Restricted Area, revises
License, Proposed No Significant issuance and shall be implemented the requirements for limitations on the
Hazards Consideration Determination, within 60 days. concentrations of radioactive material
released in liquid and gaseous effluents, Specification (TS) requirements related Brief description of amendment
and revises the references for to required end states for TS action request: The amendments revise Section
radioactive effluent control statements that are consistent with the 5 of the technical specifications to
requirements. NRC-approved Revision 0 to Technical reflect the move to a site vice president
Date of issuance: June 29, 2007. Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change organizational structure for Joseph M.
Effective date: As of its date of Traveler, TSTF–423, ‘‘Risk Informed Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
issuance, and shall be implemented Modification to Selected Required Date of issuance: July 16, 2007.
within 60 days. Action End States for BWR [boiling- Effective date: As of the date of
Amendment Nos.: 187 and 148. water reactor] Plants.’’ issuance and shall be implemented
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– Date of issuance: July 12, 2007. within 30 days.
39 and NPF–85: This amendment Effective date: As of the date of
revised the license and Technical Amendment Nos.: 175, 168.
issuance, to be implemented within 120
Specifications. days. Renewed Facility Operating License
Date of initial notice in Federal Amendments Nos.: 261 and 265. Nos. NPF–2 and NPF–8: Amendments
Register: April 10, 2007 (72 FR 17949). Renewed Facility Operating License revise the technical specifications.
The Commission’s related evaluation of Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: The Date of initial notice in Federal
the amendment is contained in a Safety amendments revised the TSs. Register: February 13, 2007 (72 FR
Evaluation dated June 29, 2007. Date of initial notice in Federal 6790). The supplement provided
No significant hazards consideration Register: December 19, 2006 (71 FR clarifying information that did not
comments received: No. 75994). The letter dated June 5, 2007, change the scope of the application nor
provided clarifying information that did the initial proposed no significant
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and
not change the initial proposed no hazards consideration determination.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic significant hazards consideration The Commission’s related evaluation
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and determination or expand the application of the amendments is contained in a
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania beyond the scope of the original Federal safety evaluation dated July 16, 2007.
Register notice. No significant hazards consideration
Date of application for amendments: The Commission’s related evaluation comments received: No.
June 8, 2006, as supplemented by letter of the amendment is contained in a
dated February 5, 2007. Safety Evaluation dated July 12, 2007. STP Nuclear Operating Company,
Brief description of amendments: No significant hazards consideration Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South
These amendments modify the comments received: No. Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda
Technical Specifications by removing County, Texas
reference to ‘‘the Banked Position FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, et al., Docket No. 50–440, Date of amendment request: August 2,
Withdrawal Sequence’’ and replace it
Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, 2004, as resubmitted on June 6, 2006,
with ‘‘the analyzed rod position
Lake County, Ohio and supplemented by letters dated
sequence.’’
Date of issuance: June 29, 2007. December 28, 2006, February 28, May 9,
Date of application for amendment:
Effective date: As of the date of and May 17, 2007.
January 19, 2007.
issuance, to be implemented within 60 Brief description of amendment: The Brief description of amendments: The
days. amendment modifies the technical amendments provide for a new action
Amendments Nos.: 260 and 264. specifications requirements for the for selected Technical Specifications
Renewed Facility Operating License diesel fuel oil program by relocating (TS) limiting conditions for operation to
Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: The references to specific standards for fuel permit extending the completion times
amendments revised the License and oil testing to licensee-controlled allowed for action requirements subject
Technical Specifications. documents and adds alternate criteria to to the requirements that the risk is
Date of initial notice in Federal the ‘‘clear and bright’’ acceptance test assessed and managed. A new
Register: August 15, 2006 (71 FR for new fuel oil. Configuration Risk Management
46934). The February 5, 2007, letter, Date of issuance: July 12, 2007. Program is added to the TS under
provided clarifying information that did Effective date: As of the date of Administrative Controls, as a risk
not change the initial proposed no issuance and shall be implemented assessment tool.
significant hazards consideration within 120 days. Date of issuance: July 13, 2007.
determination or expand the application Amendment No.: 146. Effective date: As of the date of
beyond the scope of the original Federal Facility Operating License No. NPF– issuance and shall be implemented
Register notice. The Commission’s 58: This amendment revised the within 180 days of the date of issuance.
related evaluation of the amendments is Technical Specifications and License. Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—179; Unit
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Date of initial notice in Federal 2—166.
June 29, 2007. Register: April 10, 2007 (72 FR 17950). Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
No significant hazards consideration The Commission’s related evaluation of 76 and NPF–80: The amendments
comments received: No. the amendment is contained in a Safety revised the Facility Operating Licenses
Evaluation dated July 12, 2007. and Technical Specifications.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and No significant hazards consideration
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 Date of initial notice in Federal
comments received: No.
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic Register: June 12, 2007 (72 FR 32332).
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, The Commission’s related evaluation of
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, the amendments is contained in a Safety
Date of application for amendments: Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 Evaluation dated July 13, 2007.
July 14, 2006, as supplemented by letter and 2, Houston County, Alabama No significant hazards consideration
dated June 5, 2007. Date of amendment request: January comments received: No.
Brief description of amendments: The 30, 2007, supplemented by your letter Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day
proposed changes modified Technical dated April 11, 2007. of July 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission important to safety are contained in 10 the NRC is able to ensure consideration
Catherine Haney, CFR 50.49, ‘‘Environmental only for comments received on or before
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Qualification of Electric Equipment this date. Although a time limit is given,
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Important to Safety for Nuclear Power comments and suggestions in
Regulation. Plants.’’ In addition, Criterion III, connection with items for inclusion in
[FR Doc. E7–14350 Filed 7–30–07; 8:45 am] ‘‘Design Control,’’ of Appendix B, guides currently being developed or
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P ‘‘Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear improvements in all published guides
Power Plants,’’ to 10 CFR part 50, are encouraged at any time.
requires that where a test program is
NUCLEAR REGULATORY used to verify the adequacy of a specific Electronic copies of Draft Regulatory
COMMISSION design feature, it should include Guide DG–1148 are available through
suitable qualification testing of a the NRC’s public Web site under Draft
Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, prototype unit under the most severe Regulatory Guides in the Regulatory
Availability DBE. Guides document collection of the
This regulatory guide describes a NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. method that the NRC considers http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
acceptable for use in implementing collections/. Electronic copies are also
ACTION: Draft Regulatory Guide:
specific parts of the agency’s regulations available in ADAMS (http://
Issuance, Availability.
for qualification of safety-related battery www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html),
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NRC chargers and inverters for nuclear power under Accession No. ML071440292.
Senior Program Manager, Satish plants. In addition, regulatory guides are
Aggarwal, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory II. Further Information available for inspection at the NRC’s
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– The NRC is soliciting comments on Public Document Room (PDR), which is
0001, Telephone: (301) 415–6005 or e- Draft Regulatory Guide DG–1148. located at 11555 Rockville Pike,
mail SKA@nrc.gov. Comments may be accompanied by Rockville, Maryland. The PDR’s mailing
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: relevant information or supporting data, address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC
I. Introduction and should mention DG–1148 in the 20555–0001. The PDR can also be
subject line. Comments submitted in reached by telephone at (301) 415–4737
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory writing or in electronic form will be or (800) 397–4205, by fax at (301) 415–
Commission (NRC) has issued for public made available to the public in their 3548, and by e-mail to PDR@nrc.gov.
comment a draft guide in the agency’s entirety through the NRC’s Agencywide
Regulatory Guide Series. This series has Please note that the NRC does not
Documents Access and Management intend to distribute printed copies of
been developed to describe and make System (ADAMS). Personal information
available to the public such information Draft Regulatory Guide DG–1148, unless
will not be removed from your specifically requested on an individual
as methods that are acceptable to the comments. You may submit comments
NRC staff for implementing specific basis with adequate justification. Such
by any of the following methods:
parts of the NRC’s regulations, 1. Mail comments to: Rulemaking, requests for single copies of draft or
techniques that the staff uses in Directives, and Editing Branch, Office of final guides (which may be reproduced)
evaluating specific problems or Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory or for placement on an automatic
postulated accidents, and data that the Commission, Washington, DC 20555– distribution list for single copies of
staff needs in its review of applications 0001. future draft guides in specific divisions
for permits and licenses. 2. E-mail comments to: 3 should be made in writing to the U.S.
The draft regulatory guide, entitled NRCREP@nrc.gov. You may also submit Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
‘‘Qualification of Safety-Related Battery comments via the NRC’s rulemaking Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:
Chargers & Inverters for Nuclear Power Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Reproduction and Distribution Services
Plants,’’ is temporarily identified by its Address questions about our rulemaking Section; by e-mail to
task number, DG–1148, which should be Web site to Carol A. Gallagher (301) DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; or by fax to
mentioned in all related 415–5905; e-mail CAG@nrc.gov. (301) 415–2289. Telephone requests
correspondence. 3. Hand-deliver comments to: cannot be accommodated.
The Commission’s regulations in Title Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing
10, Part 50, of the Code of Federal Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Regulatory guides are not
Regulations (10 CFR part 50), ‘‘Domestic Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 copyrighted, and Commission approval
Licensing of Production and Utilization Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland is not required to reproduce them.
Facilities,’’ require that structures, 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (5 U.S.C. 552(a))
systems, and components that are on Federal workdays. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25 day
important to safety in a nuclear power 4. Fax comments to: Rulemaking, of July, 2007.
plant must be designed to accommodate Directives, and Editing Branch, Office of
the effects of environmental conditions For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
[i.e., remain functional under postulated Commission at (301) 415–5144. Andrea Valentin,
design-basis events (DBEs)]. Toward Requests for technical information Chief, Regulatory Guide Branch, Division of
that end, the general requirements are about Draft Regulatory Guide DG–1148 Fuel, Engineering and Radiological Research,
contained in General Design Criteria 1, may be directed to NRC Senior Program Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
2, 4, and 23 of Appendix A, ‘‘General Manager, Satish Aggarwal, at (301) 415– [FR Doc. E7–14717 Filed 7–30–07; 8:45 am]
Design Criteria for Nuclear Power 6005 or e-mail SKA@nrc.gov. BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Plants,’’ to 10 CFR part 50. Augmenting Comments would be most helpful if
those general requirements, the specific received by October 2, 2007. Comments
requirements pertaining to qualification received after that date will be
of certain electrical equipment considered if it is practical to do so, but

Notice: Operating Licenses, Amendments No Significant Hazards Considerations Biweekly Notices

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Notice: Operating Licenses, Amendments No Significant Hazards Considerations Biweekly Notices

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

41780 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.

146 / Tuesday, July 31, 2007 / Notices

the license amendment. process. revises the definitions for Members of

Você também pode gostar