12838 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 

ESP) (Tentative). 

Thursday, March 29, 2007 

9:25 a.m. 

Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) 

(Tentative). 

a. CBS Corporation’s Petition for 

Hearing Regarding an NRC Staff 

Decision not to Docket a CBS 

Request for an Order that Would 

Change Decontamination Standards 

Governing a Westinghouse 

Materials License at Waltz Mill 

(Tentative). 

9:30 a.m. 

Discussion of Management Issues 

(Closed—Ex. 2). 

1:30 p.m. 

Discussion of Security Issues 

(Closed—Ex. 1, 3, & 9). 

Week of April 2, 2007—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of April 2, 2007. 

Week of April 9, 2007—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of April 9, 2007. 

Week of April 16, 2007—Tentative 

Monday, April 16, 2007 

1:30 p.m. 

Discussion of Security Issues 

(Closed—Ex. 1, 2, & 3). 

Tuesday, April 17, 2007 

1 p.m. 

Briefing on Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research (RES) 

Programs, Performance, and Plans 

(Public Meeting). (Contact: Ann 

Ramey-Smith, 301 415–6877.) 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

Week of April 23, 2007—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of April 23, 2007. 

* * * * * 

* The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. To verify the status of meetings 

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. 

Contact person for more information: 

Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1662. 

* * * * * 

Additional Information 

By a vote of 5–0 on March 13 and 14, 

2007, the Commission determined 

pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and 

§ 9.107(a) of the Commission’s rules that 

Affirmation of ‘‘Motion for 

Reconsideration of Entergy Nuclear 

Vermont Yankee, LLC, & Entergy 

Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont 

Yankee Nuclear Power Station); Entergy 

Nuclear Generation Company & Entergy 

Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim 

Nuclear Power Station), CLI–07–3 (Jan. 

22, 2007)’’ be held March 15, 2007, and 

on less than one week’s notice to the 

public. This item was previously 

scheduled for affirmation on March 22, 

2007. 

* * * * * 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

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

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g., 

braille, large print), please notify the 

NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, 

Deborah Chan, at 301–415–7041, TDD: 

301–415–2100, or by e-mail at 

DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on 

requests for reasonable accommodation 

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

* * * * * 

This notice is distributed by mail to 

several hundred subscribers; if you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969). 

In addition, distribution of this meeting 

notice over the Internet system is 

available. If you are interested in 

receiving this Commission meeting 

schedule electronically, please send an 

electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. 

Dated: March 14, 2007. 

R. Michelle Schroll, 

Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07–1342 Filed 3–15–07; 12:34 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Availability of Model 

Application Concerning Technical 

Specification Improvement Regarding 

Deletion of E Bar Definition and 

Revision to Reactor Coolant System 

Specific Activity Technical 

Specification Using the Consolidated 

Line Item Improvement Process 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has prepared a 

model license amendment request 

(LAR), model safety evaluation (SE), and 

model proposed no significant hazards 

consideration (NSHC) determination 

related to deletion of the E Bar 

definition and revision to reactor 

coolant system (RCS) specific activity 

technical specification. This request 

revises the RCS specific activity 

specification for pressurized water 

reactors to utilize a new indicator, Dose 

Equivalent Xenon-133 instead of the 

current indicator known as E Bar. 

The purpose of these models is to 

permit the NRC staff to efficiently 

process amendments to incorporate 

these changes into plant-specific 

technical specifications (TS) for 

Babcock and Wilcox, Westinghouse, and 

Combustion Engineering pressurized 

water reactors (PWRs). Licensees of 

nuclear power reactors to which the 

models apply can request amendments 

conforming to the models. In such a 

request, a licensee should confirm the 

applicability of the model LAR, model 

SE and NSHC determination to its plant. 

DATES: The NRC staff issued a Federal 

Register Notice (71 FR 67170, November 

20, 2006) which provided a model LAR, 

model SE, and model NSHC related to 

deletion of E Bar definition and revision 

to RCS specific activity technical 

specification; similarly the NRC staff 

herein provides a revised model LAR, a 

revised model SE, and a revised model 

NSHC. The NRC staff can most 

efficiently consider applications based 

upon the model LAR, which references 

the model SE, if the application is 

submitted within one year of this 

Federal Register Notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Trent Wertz, Mail Stop: O–12H2, 

Division of Inspection and Regional 

Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, telephone (301) 415–1568. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Regulatory Issue Summary 2000–06, 

‘‘Consolidated Line Item Improvement 

Process (CLIIP) for Adopting Standard 

Technical Specifications Changes for 

Power Reactors,’’ was issued on March 

20, 2000. The CLIIP is intended to 

improve the efficiency and transparency 

of NRC licensing processes. This is 

accomplished by processing proposed 

changes to the Standard Technical 

Specifications (STS) in a manner that 

supports subsequent license amendment 

applications. The CLIIP includes an 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on proposed changes to the STS 

following a preliminary assessment by 

the NRC staff and finding that the 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 12839 

change will likely be offered for 

adoption by licensees. The CLIIP directs 

the NRC staff to evaluate any comments 

received for a proposed change to the 

STS and to either reconsider the change 

or proceed with announcing the 

availability of the change for proposed 

adoption by licensees. Those licensees 

opting to apply for the subject change to 

TSs are responsible for reviewing the 

NRC staff’s evaluation, referencing the 

applicable technical justifications, and 

providing any necessary plant-specific 

information. Each amendment 

application made in response to the 

notice of availability will be processed 

and noticed in accordance with 

applicable NRC rules and procedures. 

This notice involves replacement of 

the current PWR TS 3.4.16 limit on RCS 

gross specific activity with a new limit 

on RCS noble gas specific activity. The 

noble gas specific activity limit would 

be based on a new dose equivalent Xe133 (DEX) definition that would replace 

the current E Bar average disintegration 

energy definition. In addition, the 

current dose equivalent I–131 (DEI) 

definition would be revised to allow the 

use of additional thyroid dose 

conversion factors (DCFs). By letter 

dated September 13, 2005, the 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) proposed these changes for 

incorporation into the STS as TSTF–

490, Revision 0, which was referenced 

in the Federal Register Notice (FRN) 71 

FR 67170, of November 20, 2006, and 

can be viewed on the NRC’s Web page 

at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/ 

operating/licensing/techspecs.html. 

Applicability 

These proposed changes will revise 

the definition of DOSE EQUIVALENT I–

131, delete the definition of ‘‘E Bar,’’

AVERAGE DISINTEGRATION ENERGY, 

add a new definition for DOSE 

EQUIVALENT XE–133, and revise LCO 

3.4.16 for Babcock and Wilcox, 

Westinghouse, and Combustion 

Engineering PWRs. 

To efficiently process the incoming 

license amendment applications, the 

NRC staff requests that each licensee 

applying for the changes addressed by 

TSTF–490, Revision 0, using the CLIIP 

submit an LAR that adheres to the 

following model. Any variations from 

the model LAR should be explained in 

the licensee’s submittal. Variations from 

the approach recommended in this 

notice may require additional review by 

the NRC staff, and may increase the time 

and resources needed for the review. 

Significant variations from the 

approach, or inclusion of additional 

changes to the license, will result in 

staff rejection of the submittal. Instead, 

licensees desiring significant variations 

and/or additional changes should 

submit a LAR that does not claim to 

adopt TSTF–490. 

Public Notices 

The staff issued a Federal Register 

Notice (71 FR 67170, November 20, 

2006) that requested public comment on 

the NRC’s pending action to delete the 

E Bar definition and revise the RCS 

specific activity technical specification. 

In particular, following an assessment 

and draft safety evaluation by the NRC 

staff, the staff sought public comment 

on proposed changes to the STS, 

designated TSTF–490 Revision 0. The 

TSTF–490 Revision 0 can be viewed on 

the NRC’s Web page at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ 

licensing/techspecs.html. TSTF–490 

Revision 0 may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC Public 

Document Room, located at One White 

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 

available records are accessible 

electronically from the ADAMS Public 

Library component on the NRC Web 

site, (the Electronic Reading Room) at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. 

In response to the notice soliciting 

comments from the interested members 

of the public about NRC’s pending 

action to delete the E Bar definition and 

revise the RCS specific activity 

technical specification, the staff 

received four sets of comments (from 

licensees and the TSTF Owners Groups, 

representing the licensees). Specific 

comments on the model SE, model LAR, 

and the model NSHC were offered, and 

are summarized and discussed below: 

1. Comment: In Sections 3.1.4 and 

3.1.7 the model safety evaluation states: 

‘‘In MODES 5 and 6, the steam 

generators are not used for decay heat 

removal, the RCS and steam generators 

are depressurized, and primary to 

secondary leakage is minimal.’’

However, using the Westinghouse 

Standard Technical Specifications as an 

example, NUREG–1431, Vol. 2, Rev. 3.0, 

Bases 3.4.7 (RCS Loops-Mode 5, Loops 

Filled) states ‘‘In MODE 5 with the RCS 

loops filled, the primary function of the 

reactor coolant is the removal of decay 

heat and transfer this heat either to the 

steam generator (SG) secondary side 

coolant via natural circulation (Ref. 1) or 

the component cooling water via the 

residual heat removal (RHR) heat 

exchangers.’’ Therefore, the steam 

generators are taken credit for as a 

means of removing decay heat during 

MODE 5. Additionally, the RCS may be 

pressurized during MODE 5. The 

statement as written in the model safety 

evaluation may prevent licensees from 

stating that their application is 

consistent with the model technical 

evaluation. 

Response: The comment addresses the 

MODES for which the LCO would be 

applicable. The NRC staff agrees that the 

statement in sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.7 

does not acknowledge the condition of 

MODE 5 with the RCS loops filled. The 

Model SE will be modified to account 

for this condition. 

2. Comment: There is currently one 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.16 limit 

on RCS gross specific activity, not 

‘‘limits’’. The single limit is 100/E Bar 

in all 3 affected STS NUREGs. There are 

two places that refer to limits (plural). 

Response: This editorial comment is 

correct, and the Supplemental 

Information section and the Model LAR 

will be revised accordingly. 

3. Comment: In the Model SE, Section 

2.0: Correct the title of TID 14844. 

‘‘Reactor’’ is singular in the title. 

Response: This editorial comment is 

correct, and the Model SE will be 

revised accordingly. 

4. Comment: In the Model SE, Section 

3.1.1: The list of Dose Conversion Factor 

(DCF) references should be bracketed 

since this change will be subject to plant 

specific considerations. The optional 

DCF reference included in TSTF–490, 

and discussed in the traveler’s 

justification section 3.0 (paragraph 2, 

lines 4–9), for alternate source term 

plants should be included here as 

follows: 

] or [Committed Dose Equivalent (CDE) or 

Committed Effective Dose Equivalent (CEDE) 

dose conversion factors from Table 2.1 of 

EPA Federal Guidance Report No. 11.] 

Response: The Model SE endorsed the 

use of DCFs from Table 2.1 of FGR–11, 

1988, ‘‘Limiting Values of Radionuclide 

Intake and Air Concentration and Dose 

Conversion Factors for Inhalation, 

Submersion, and Ingestion.’’ As stated 

in the model SE, it is incumbent on the 

licensee to ensure that the DCFs used in 

the determination of DEI are consistent 

with the DCFs used in the applicable 

dose consequence analyses. As such, the 

references for the applicable DCFs 

would indeed be plant specific and the 

model SE has been changed 

accordingly. 

5. Comment: In the model SE, Section 

3.1.2: All noble gas isotope lists and 

DCF citations should be bracketed since 

these changes are subject to plant 

specific considerations. The 2nd 

paragraph is missing a forward slash 

mark between the words ‘‘and’’ and 

‘‘or’’ in the text ‘‘by tritium and 

corrosion and activation products 

***’’


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
12840 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 

Response: This editorial comment is 

correct, and the Model SE will be 

corrected. 

6. Comment: In the Model SE, Section 

3.1.3: The discussion on revised 

Required Action A.1 should be 

relocated to Model SE Section 3.1.5 that 

discusses the changes to TS 3.4.16 

condition A. 

Response: The NRC staff agrees that 

the discussion on revised Required 

Action A.1 should be relocated. The 

Model SE will be updated to reflect the 

change. 

7. Comment: In the Model SE Section 

3.1.6: This section states that Condition 

‘‘C’’ is replaced with a new Condition 

‘‘B’’. This is only true for the B&W and 

CE STS NUREGs (1430 and 1432). It is 

not true for the Westinghouse STS 

NUREG–1431, and it should also be 

noted that the Westinghouse plants 

developed this traveler for submittal to 

the NRC. This section should state that 

‘‘TS 3.4.16 Condition B [in NUREG–

1431; C in NUREG–1430 and NUREG–

1432] is replaced with a new Condition 

B for DEX not within limits.’’

Section 3.1.6 should also discuss the 

addition of the LCO 3.0.4.c Note to 

revised Required Action B.1, consistent 

with the Model Application, Enclosure 

1, Section 2.0, item C. Suggested 

wording that could be used for this 

purpose is: 

A Note is also added to the revised 

Required Action B.1 that states LCO 3.0.4.c 

is applicable. This Note would allow entry 

into a Mode or other specified condition in 

the LCO Applicability when LCO 3.4.16 is 

not being met and is the same Note that is 

currently stated for Required Actions A.1 and 

A.2. The proposed Note would allow entry 

into the applicable Modes when the DEX is 

not within its limit; in other words, the plant 

could go up in the Modes from Mode 4 to 

Mode 1 (power operation) while the DEX 

limit is exceeded and the DEX is being 

restored to within its limit. This Mode 

change allowance is acceptable due to the 

significant conservatism incorporated into 

the DEX specific activity limit, and the 

ability to restore transient specific activity 

excursions while the plant remains at, or 

proceeds to, power operation. 

Response: The NRC staff agrees with 

the wording with this editorial comment 

and the Model SE will be updated to 

reflect the differences in the NUREGs. 

Also, a discussion concerning the LCO 

3.0.4.c note to required Action B.1 will 

be added to the Model SE Section 3.1.6. 

8. Comment: In the Model SE, Section 

3.1.8: This section incorrectly states that 

revised SR 3.4.16.1 has a new LCO 

3.0.4.c Note. It should state that SR 

3.4.16.1 has a new performance 

modifying Note that reads: ‘‘Only 

required to be performed in Mode 1.’’

The application of this style of Note is 

discussed in Example 1.4–5 in the latest 

revision of the STS NUREGs. The LCO 

3.0.4.c Note addition applies only to 

revised Required Action B.1 

Response: The NRC staff believes that 

the new Note for SR 3.4.16.1 is 

consistent with Example 1.4–5 and the 

Note in SR 3.4.16.2 and therefore does 

not need to be changed. 

9. Comment: In the Model SE, Section 

3.1.2 states ‘‘The determination of DOSE 

EQUIVALENT XE–133 shall be 

performed using effective dose 

conversion factors for air submersion 

listed in Table III.1 of EPA Federal 

Guidance Report No. 12 or the average 

gamma disintegration energies as 

provided in ICRP Publication 38, 

‘‘Radionuclide Transformations’’ or 

similar source.’’ What exactly is 

‘‘similar source’’? Does ‘‘similar source’’

apply to average gamma energies or to 

the DCFs such as published in Reg. 

Guide 1.109? 

Response: The selection of the dose 

conversion factors used in the definition 

of DEX should be consistent with the 

dose conversion factors currently 

employed in the licensee’s dose 

consequence analyses and as such the 

reference for the dose conversion factors 

or the source of the gamma energies 

used in the definition will be site 

specific. Brackets will be placed around 

the references to indicate where site 

specific information should be 

included. 

10. Comment: In the Model SE, 

Section 3.1.2 states ‘‘* * * the 

calculation of DEX is based on the acute 

dose to the whole body and considers 

the noble gases KR–85M, KR–87, KR–

88, XE–133M, XE–133, XE–135M, XE–

135 and XE–133 * * *’’. Under the 

same Section two additional nuclides 

are added to the new definition for EAVERAGE DISINTEGRATION ENERGY; 

Kr-85 and XE–131M. The addition of 

the additional nuclides appears to 

conflict with the preceding technical 

Evaluation. Is it the expectation that 

these two nuclides be added to the DEX 

calculation in addition to those listed in 

the preceding section? 

Response: The selection of the 

isotopes used in the definition of DEX 

will be site specific and based on the 

dose significant noble gas isotopes 

identified in the appropriate DBA dose 

consequence analyses. The list of noble 

gas isotopes will be placed in brackets 

to indicate that the actual list will be 

site specific. 

11. Comment: The title of TSTF–490 

is not capitalized consistently and is not 

consistent with the submitted Traveler. 

The title of TSTF–490 is ‘‘Deletion of E 

Bar Definition and Revision to RCS 

Specific Activity Tech Spec.’’ Note that 

there is no hyphen used in the term ‘‘E 

Bar.’’

Response: This editorial comment is 

correct, and the Model SE will be 

corrected. 

12. Comment: In the proposed NSHC, 

to be consistent with 10 CFR 50.92(c)(2), 

the title of Criterion 2 should be revised 

to add the word ‘‘Accident’’ before 

‘‘Previously Evaluated.’’ Specifically, it 

should state, ‘‘The Proposed Change 

Does Not Create the Possibility of a New 

or Different Kind of Accident from any 

Accident Previously Evaluated.’’

Response: This editorial comment is 

correct, and the proposed NSHC will be 

corrected. 

13. Comment: In the Model LAR it 

states, ‘‘I declare under penalty of 

perjury under the laws of the United 

States of America that I am authorized 

by [LICENSEE] to make this request and 

that the foregoing is true and correct.’’

This statement is not consistent with the 

recommended statement given in RIS 

2001–18, ‘‘Requirements for Oath and 

Affirmation.’’ RIS 2001–18 recommends 

the statement, ‘‘I declare [or certify, 

verify, state] under penalty of perjury 

that the foregoing is true and correct.’’

Note that RIS 2001–18 states that this 

statement must be used verbatim. We 

recommend that the Model Application 

be revised to be consistent with RIS 

2001–18. 

Response: The statement in the Model 

LAR is consistent with RIS 2001–18. 

The purpose of RIS 2001–18 was to 

inform licensees that there is an 

alternative to the oath or affirmation 

statement contained in 28 U.S.C. 1746. 

Both are considered acceptable. The 

NRC staff includes only the first option 

listed in 28 U.S.C. 1746 for brevity. 

14. Comment: In the Model LAR, 

Section 8.0, the second reference should 

be numbered. Note that Section 4.0 

refers to References 1 and 2. 

Response: The references in Section 

8.0 are numbered, however, for 

clarification, the Notice for Comment 

and the Notice for Availability will be 

listed as separate references. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 8th day 

of March, 2007. 

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Timothy J. Kobetz, 

Chief, Technical Specifications Branch, 

Division of Inspection and Regional Support, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

Attachment: 

FOR INCLUSION ON THE TECHNICAL 

SPECIFICATION WEB PAGE THE 

FOLLOWING EXAMPLE OF AN 

APPLICATION WAS PREPARED BY THE 

NRC STAFF TO FACILITATE THE 

ADOPTION OF TECHNICAL 

SPECIFICATION TASK FORCE (TSTF) 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 12841 

TRAVELER TSTF–490, REVISION 0 

‘‘DELETION OF E BAR DEFINITION AND 

REVISION TO RCS SPECIFIC ACTIVITY 

TECH SPEC.’’ THE MODEL PROVIDES THE 

EXPECTED LEVEL OF DETAIL AND 

CONTENT FOR AN APPLICATION TO 

ADOPT TSTF–490, REVISION 0. LICENSEES 

REMAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING 

THAT THEIR ACTUAL APPLICATION 

FULFILLS THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE 

REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS NRC 

REGULATIONS. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Document Control Desk, 

Washington, DC 20555. 

SUBJECT: PLANT NAME, DOCKET NO. 50–

[xxx,] RE: APPLICATION FOR 

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 

IMPROVEMENT TO ADOPT TSTF–490, 

REVISION 0, ‘‘DELETION OF E BAR 

DEFINITION AND REVISION TO RCS 

SPECIFIC ACTIVITY TECH SPEC’’

Dear Sir or Madam: In accordance with the 

provisions of Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), 

[LICENSEE] is submitting a request for an 

amendment to the technical specifications 

(TS) for [PLANT NAME, UNIT NOS.]. The 

proposed changes would replace the current 

pressurized water reactor (PWR) Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.4.16 limit on reactor 

coolant system (RCS) gross specific activity 

with a new limit on RCS noble gas specific 

activity. The noble gas specific activity limit 

would be based on a new dose equivalent 

Xe–133 (DEX) definition that would replace 

the current E Bar average disintegration 

energy definition. In addition, the current 

dose equivalent I–131 (DEI) definition would 

be revised to allow the use of additional 

thyroid dose conversion factors (DCFs). 

The changes are consistent with NRCapproved Industry Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 

Specification Change Traveler, TSTF–490, 

Revision 0, ‘‘Deletion of E Bar Definition and 

Revision to RCS Specific Activity Tech 

Spec.’’ The availability of this TS 

improvement was announced in the Federal 

Register on [DATE] ([ ]FR[ ]) as part of the 

consolidated line item improvement process 

(CLIIP). 

Enclosure 1 provides a description and 

assessment of the proposed changes, as well 

as confirmation of applicability. Enclosure 2 

provides the existing TS pages and TS Bases 

marked-up to show the proposed changes. 

Enclosure 3 provides final TS pages and TS 

Bases pages. 

[LICENSEE] requests approval of the 

proposed license amendment by [DATE], 

with the amendment being implemented [BY 

DATE OR WITHIN X DAYS]. In accordance 

with 10 CFR 50.91, a copy of this application, 

with enclosures, is being provided to the 

designated [STATE] Official. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under 

the laws of the United States of America that 

I am authorized by [LICENSEE] to make this 

request and that the foregoing is true and 

correct. [Note that request may be notarized 

in lieu of using this oath or affirmation 

statement]. If you should have any questions 

regarding this submittal, please contact [ ]. 

Sincerely, 

Name, Title 

Enclosures: 

1. Description and Assessment of Proposed 

Changes 

2. Proposed Technical Specification 

Changes and Technical Specification Bases 

Changes 

3. Final Technical Specification and Bases 

pages 

cc: NRR Project Manager 

Regional Office 

Resident Inspector 

State Contact 

ITSB Branch Chief 

1.0 Description 

This letter is a request to amend Operating 

License(s) [LICENSE NUMBER(S)] for 

[PLANT/UNIT NAME(S)]. 

The proposed changes would replace the 

current limits on primary coolant gross 

specific activity with limits on primary 

coolant noble gas activity. The noble gas 

activity would be based on DOSE 

EQUIVALENT XE–133 and would take into 

account only the noble gas activity in the 

primary coolant. The changes were approved 

by the NRC staff Safety Evaluation (SE) dated 

September 27, 2006 (ADAMS ML062700612) 

(Reference 1). Technical Specification Task 

Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF–490, 

Revision 0, ‘‘Deletion of E Bar Definition and 

Revision to RCS Specific Activity Tech Spec’’

was announced for availability in the Federal 

Register on [DATE] as part of the 

consolidated line item improvement process 

(CLIIP). 

2.0 Proposed Changes 

Consistent with NRC-approved TSTF–490, 

Revision 0, the proposed TS changes: 

• Revise the definition of DOSE 

EQUIVALENT I–131. 

• Delete the definition of ‘‘E Bar, 

AVERAGE DISINTEGRATION ENERGY. 

• Add a new TS definition for DOSE 

EQUIVALENT XE–133. 

• Revise LCO 3.4.16, ‘‘RCS Specific 

Activity’’ to delete references to gross 

specific activity; add limits for DOSE 

EQUIVALENT I–131 and DOSE 

EQUIVALENT XE–133; and delete Figure 

3.4.16–1, ‘‘Reactor Coolant DOSE 

EQUIVALENT I–131 Specific Activity Limit 

versus Percent of RATED THERMAL 

POWER.’’

• Revise LCO 3.4.16 ‘‘Applicability’’ to 

specify the LCO is applicable in MODES 1, 

2, 3, and 4. 

• Modify ACTIONS Table as follows: 

A. Condition A is modified to delete the 

reference to Figure 3.4.16–1, and define an 

upper limit that is applicable at all power 

levels. 

B. NUREG–1430 and NUREG–1432 

ACTIONS are reordered, moving Condition C 

to Condition B to be consistent with the 

Writer’s Guide. 

C. Condition B (was Condition C in 

NUREG–1430 and NUREG–1432) is modified 

to provide a Condition and Required Action 

for DOSE EQUIVALENT XE–133 instead of 

gross specific activity. The Completion Time 

is changed from 6 hours to 48 hours. A Note 

allowing the applicability of LCO 3.0.4.c is 

added, consistent with the Note to Required 

Action A.1. 

D. Condition C (was Condition B in 

NUREG–1430 and NUREG–1432) is modified 

based on the changes to Conditions A and B 

and to reflect the change in the LCO 

Applicability. 

• Revise SR 3.4.16.1 to verify the limit for 

DOSE EQUIVALENT XE–133. A Note is 

added, consistent with SR 3.4.16.2 to allow 

entry into MODES 2, 3, and 4 prior to 

performance of the SR. 

• Delete SR 3.4.16.3. 

3.0 Background 

The background for this application is as 

stated in the model SE in NRC’s Notice of 

Availability published on [DATE ]([ ] FR [ ]), 

the NRC Notice for Comment published on 

[DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]), and TSTF–490, Revision 

0. 

4.0 Technical Analysis 

[LICENSEE] has reviewed References 1, 2 

and 3, and the model SE published on 

[DATE] ([ ]FR [ ]) as part of the CLIIP Notice 

for Comment. [LICENSEE] has applied the 

methodology in Reference 1 to develop the 

proposed TS changes. [LICENSEE] has also 

concluded that the justifications presented in 

TSTF–490, Revision 0 and the model SE 

prepared by the NRC staff are applicable to 

[PLANT, UNIT NOS.], and justify this 

amendment for the incorporation of the 

changes to the [PLANT] TS. 

5.0 Regulatory Analysis 

A description of this proposed change and 

its relationship to applicable regulatory 

requirements and guidance was provided in 

the NRC Notice of Availability published on 

[DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]), the NRC Notice for 

Comment published on [DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]), 

and TSTF–490, Revision 0. 

6.0 No Significant Hazards Consideration 

[LICENSEE] has reviewed the proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination published in the Federal 

Register on [DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]) as part of the 

CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the 

proposed determination presented in the 

notice is applicable to [PLANT] and the 

determination is hereby incorporated by 

reference to satisfy the requirements of 10 

CFR 50.91(a). 

7.0 Environmental Evaluation 

[LICENSEE] has reviewed the 

environmental consideration included in the 

model SE published in the Federal Register 

on [DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]) as part of the CLIIP. 

[LICENSEE] has concluded that the staff’s 

findings presented therein are applicable to 

[PLANT] and the determination is hereby 

incorporated by reference for this 

application. 

8.0 References 

1. NRC Safety Evaluation (SE) approving 

TSTF–490, Revision 0 dated September 27, 

2006. 

2. Federal Notice for Comment published 

on [DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]). 

3. Federal Notice of Availability published 

on [DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]). 

Model Safety Evaluation 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
12842 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 

Technical Specification Task Force TSTF–

490, Revision 0, ‘‘Deletion of E Bar Definition 

and Revision to RCS Specific Activity Tech 

Spec’’

1.0 Introduction 

By letter dated [____, 20_], [LICENSEE] (the 

licensee) proposed changes to the technical 

specifications (TS) for [PLANT NAME]. The 

requested changes are the adoption of TSTF–

490, Revision 0, ‘‘Deletion of E Bar Definition 

and Revision to RCS Specific Activity Tech 

Spec’’ for pressurized water reactor (PWR) 

Standard Technical Specifications (STS). By 

letter dated September 13, 2005, the 

Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

submitted TSTF–490 for Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) staff review. This TSTF 

involves changes to NUREG–1430, NUREG–

1431, and NUREG–1432 STS Section 3.4.16 

reactor coolant system (RCS) gross specific 

activity limits with the addition of a new 

limit for noble gas specific activity. The 

noble gas specific activity limit would be 

based on a new dose equivalent Xe–133 

(DEX) definition that replaces the current E 

Bar average disintegration energy definition. 

In addition, the current dose equivalent I–

131 (DEI) definition would be revised to 

allow the use of additional thyroid dose 

conversion factors (DCFs). 

2.0 Regulatory Evaluation 

The NRC staff evaluated the impact of the 

proposed changes as they relate to the 

radiological consequences of affected design 

basis accidents (DBAs) that use the RCS 

inventory as the source term. The source 

term assumed in radiological analyses should 

be based on the activity associated with the 

projected fuel damage or the maximum RCS 

technical specifications (TS) values, 

whichever maximizes the radiological 

consequences. The limits on RCS specific 

activity ensure that the offsite doses are 

appropriately limited for accidents that are 

based on releases from the RCS with no 

significant amount of fuel damage. 

The Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR) 

accident and the Main Steam Line Break 

(MSLB) accident typically do not result in 

fuel damage and therefore the radiological 

consequence analyses are based on the 

release of primary coolant activity at 

maximum TS limits. For accidents that result 

in fuel damage, the additional dose 

contribution from the initial activity in the 

RCS is not normally evaluated and is 

considered to be insignificant in relation to 

the dose resulting from the release of fission 

products from the damaged fuel. 

For licensees that incorporate the source 

term as defined in Technical Information 

Document (TID) 14844, AEC, 1962, 

‘‘Calculation of Distance Factors for Power 

and Test Reactors Sites,’’ in their dose 

consequence analyses, the NRC staff uses the 

regulatory guidance provided in NUREG–

0800, ‘‘Standard Review Plan (SRP) for the 

Review of Safety Analysis Reports for 

Nuclear Power Plants,’’ Section 15.1.5, 

‘‘Steam System Piping Failures Inside and 

Outside of Containment (PWR),’’ Appendix 

A, ‘‘Radiological Consequences of Main 

Steam Line Failures Outside Containment,’’

Revision 2, for the evaluation of MSLB 

accident analyses and NUREG–0800, SRP 

Section 15.6.3, ‘‘Radiological Consequences 

of Steam Generator Tube Failure (PWR),’’

Revision 2, for evaluating SGTR accidents 

analyses. In addition, the NRC staff uses the 

guidance from RG 1.195, ‘‘Methods and 

Assumptions for Evaluating Radiological 

Consequences of Design Basis Accidents at 

Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ May 

2003, for those licensees that chose to use its 

guidance for dose consequence analyses 

using the TID 14844 source term. 

For licensees using the alternative source 

term (AST) in their dose consequence 

analyses, the NRC staff uses the regulatory 

guidance provided in NUREG–0800, SRP 

Section 15.0.1, ‘‘Radiological Consequence 

Analyses Using Alternative Source Terms,’’

Revision 0, July 2000, and the methodology 

and assumptions stated in Regulatory Guide 

(RG) 1.183, ‘‘Alternative Radiological Source 

Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents 

at Nuclear Power Reactors’’, July 2000. 

The applicable dose criteria for the 

evaluation of DBAs depends on the source 

term incorporated in the dose consequence 

analyses. For licensees using the TID 14844 

source term, the maximum dose criteria to 

the whole body and the thyroid that an 

individual at the exclusion area boundary 

(EAB) can receive for the first 2 hours 

following an accident, and at the low 

population zone (LPZ) outer boundary for the 

duration of the radiological release, are 

specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Part 100.11. These 

criteria are 25 roentgen equivalent man (rem) 

total whole body dose and 300 rem thyroid 

dose from iodine exposure. The accident 

dose criteria in 10 CFR 100.11 is 

supplemented by accident specific dose 

acceptance criteria in SRP 15.1.5, Appendix 

A, SRP 15.6.3 or Table 4 of RG 1.195, 

‘‘Methods and Assumptions for Evaluating 

Radiological Consequences of Design Basis 

Accidents at Light Water Nuclear Power 

Reactors,’’ May 2003. 

For control room dose consequence 

analyses that use the TID 14844 source term, 

the regulatory requirement for which the 

NRC staff bases its acceptance is General 

Design Criterion (GDC) 19 of Appendix A to 

10 CFR Part 50, ‘‘Control Room’’. GDC 19 

requires that adequate radiation protection be 

provided to permit access and occupancy of 

the control room under accident conditions 

without personnel receiving radiation 

exposures in excess of 5 rem whole body, or 

its equivalent to any part of the body, for the 

duration of the accident. NUREG–0800, SRP 

Section 6.4, ‘‘Control Room Habitability 

System,’’ Revision 2, July 1981, provides 

guidelines defining the dose equivalency of 

5 rem whole body as 30 rem for both the 

thyroid and skin dose. For licensees adopting 

the guidance from RG 1.196, ‘‘Control Room 

Habitability at Light Water Nuclear Power 

Reactors,’’ May 2003, Section C.4.5 of RG 

1.195, May 2003, states that in lieu of the 

dose equivalency guidelines from Section 6.4 

of NUREG–0800, the 10 CFR 20.1201 annual 

organ dose limit of 50 rem can be used for 

both the thyroid and skin dose equivalent of 

5 rem whole body. 

Licensees using the AST are evaluated 

against the dose criteria specified in 10 CFR 

part 50.67(b)(2). The off-site dose criteria are 

25 rem total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) 

at the EAB for any 2-hour period following 

the onset of the postulated fission product 

release and 25 rem TEDE at the outer 

boundary of the LPZ for the duration of the 

postulated fission product release. In 

addition, 10 CFR part 50.67(b)(2)(iii) requires 

that adequate radiation protection be 

provided to permit access and occupancy of 

the control room under accident conditions 

without personnel receiving radiation 

exposures in excess of 5 rem TEDE for the 

duration of the accident. 

3.0 Technical Evaluation 

3. 1 Technical Evaluation of TSTF–490 TS 

Changes 

3.1.1 Revision to the Definition of DEI 

The list of acceptable DCFs for use in the 

determination of DEI include the following: 

• [Table III of TID–14844, AEC, 1962, 

‘‘Calculation of Distance Factors for Power 

and Test Reactor Sites.’’] 

• [Table E–7 of Regulatory Guide 1.109, 

Revision 1, NRC, 1977.] 

• [ICRP 30,1979, page 192–212, Table 

titled ‘‘Committed Dose Equivalent in Target 

Organs or Tissues per Intake of Unit 

Activity.’’] 

• [Committed Dose Equivalent (CDE) or 

Committed Effective Dose Equivalent (CEDE) 

dose conversion factors from Table 2.1 of 

EPA Federal Guidance Report No. 11.’’] 

• [Table 2.1 of EPA Federal Guidance 

Report No. 11, 1988, ‘‘Limiting Values of 

Radionuclide Intake and Air Concentration 

and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, 

Submersion, and Ingestion.’’] 

Note: It is incumbent on the licensee to 

ensure that the DCFs used in the 

determination of DEI are consistent with the 

applicable dose consequence analyses. 

3.1.2 Deletion of the Definition of E Bar and 

the Addition of a New Definition for DE Xe133 

The new definition for DEX is similar to 

the definition for DEI. The determination of 

DEX will be performed in a similar manner 

to that currently used in determining DEI, 

except that the calculation of DEX is based 

on the acute dose to the whole body and 

considers the noble gases [Kr-85m, Kr-85, Kr87, Kr-88, Xe-131m, Xe-133m, Xe-133, Xe135m, Xe-135, and Xe-138] which are 

significant in terms of contribution to whole 

body dose. Some noble gas isotopes are not 

included due to low concentration, short half 

life, or small dose conversion factor. The 

calculation of DEX would use either the 

average gamma disintegration energies for the 

nuclides or the effective dose conversion 

factors from Table III.1 of EPA FGR No. 12. 

Using this approach, the limit on the amount 

of noble gas activity in the primary coolant 

would not fluctuate with variations in the 

calculated values of E Bar. If a specified 

noble gas nuclide is not detected, the new 

definition states that it should be assumed 

the nuclide is present at the minimum 

detectable activity. This will result in a 

conservative calculation of DEX. 

When E Bar is determined using a design 

basis approach in which it is assumed that 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 12843 

1.0% of the power is being generated by fuel 

rods having cladding defects and it is also 

assumed that there is no removal of fission 

gases from the letdown flow, the value of E 

Bar is dominated by Xe-133. The other 

nuclides have relatively small contributions. 

However, during normal plant operation 

there are typically only a small amount of 

fuel clad defects and the radioactive nuclide 

inventory can become dominated by tritium 

and corrosion and/or activation products, 

resulting in the determination of a value of 

E Bar that is very different than would be 

calculated using the design basis approach. 

Because of this difference, the accident dose 

analyses become disconnected from plant 

operation and the limiting condition for 

operation (LCO) becomes essentially 

meaningless. It also results in a TS limit that 

can vary during operation as different values 

for E Bar are determined. 

This change will implement a LCO that is 

consistent with the whole body radiological 

consequence analyses which are sensitive to 

the noble gas activity in the primary coolant 

but not to other non-gaseous activity 

currently captured in the E Bar definition. 

LCO 3.4.16 specifies the limit for primary 

coolant gross specific activity as 100/E Bar 

_Ci/gm. The current E Bar definition includes 

radioisotopes that decay by the emission of 

both gamma and beta radiation. The current 

Condition B of LCO 3.4.16 would rarely, if 

ever, be entered for exceeding 100/E Bar 

since the calculated value is very high (the 

denominator is very low) if beta emitters 

such as tritium (H-3) are included in the 

determination, as required by the E Bar 

definition. 

TS Section 1.1 definition for E—AVERAGE 

DISINTEGRATION ENERGY (E Bar) is 

deleted and replaced with a new definition 

for DEX which states: 

• DOSE EQUIVALENT XE-133 shall be 

that concentration of Xe–133 (microcuries 

per gram) that alone would produce the same 

acute dose to the whole body as the 

combined activities of noble gas nuclides [Kr85m, Kr-85, Kr-87, Kr-88, Xe-131m, Xe-133m, 

Xe-133, Xe-135m, Xe-135, and Xe-138] 

actually present. If a specific noble gas 

nuclide is not detected, it should be assumed 

to be present at the minimum detectable 

activity. The determination of DOSE 

EQUIVALENT XE-133 shall be performed 

using [effective dose conversion factors for 

air submersion listed in Table III.1 of EPA 

Federal Guidance Report No. 12, 1993, 

‘‘External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, 

Water, and Soil’’ or the average gamma 

disintegration energies as provided in ICRP 

Publication 38, ‘‘Radionuclide 

Transformations’’ or similar source.]’’

The change incorporating the newly 

defined quantity DEX is acceptable from a 

radiological dose perspective since it will 

result in an LCO that more closely relates the 

non-iodine RCS activity limits to the dose 

consequence analyses which form their 

bases. Note: It is incumbent on the licensee 

to ensure that the DCFs used in the 

determination of DEI and the newly defined 

dex are consistent with the DCFs used in the 

applicable dose consequence analysis. 

3.1.3 LCO 3.4.16, ‘‘RCS Specific Activity’’

LCO 3.4.16 is modified to specify that 

iodine specific activity in terms of DEI and 

noble gas specific activity in terms of DEX 

shall be within limits. Currently the limiting 

indicators are not explicitly identified in the 

LCO, but are instead defined in current 

Condition C and Surveillance Requirement 

(SR) 3.4.16.1 for gross non-iodine specific 

activity and in current Condition A and SR 

3.4.16.2 for iodine specific activity. 

The change states ‘‘RCS DOSE 

EQUIVALENT 1–131 and DOSE 

EQUIVALENT XE-133 specific activity shall 

be within limits.’’ Note: IT IS INCUMBENT 

ON THE LICENSEE TO ENSURE THAT THE 

SITE SPECIFIC LIMITS FOR BOTH DEI AND 

DEX ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE 

CURRENT SGTR AND MSLB 

RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCE 

ANALYSES. 

3.1.4 TS 3.4.16 Applicability 

TS 3.4.16 Applicability is modified to 

include all of MODE 3 and MODE 4. It is 

necessary for the LCO to apply during 

MODES 1 through 4 to limit the potential 

radiological consequences of an SGTR or 

MSLB that may occur during these MODES. 

In MODE 5 with the RCS loops filled, the 

steam generators are specified as a backup 

means of decay heat removal via natural 

circulation. In this mode, however, due to the 

reduced temperature of the RCS, the 

probability of a DBA involving the release of 

significant quantities of RCS inventory is 

greatly reduced. Therefore, monitoring of 

RCS specific activity is not required. In 

MODE 5 with the RCS loops not filled and 

in MODE 6 the steam generators are not used 

for decay heat removal, the RCS and steam 

generators are depressurized and primary to 

secondary leakage is minimal. Therefore, the 

monitoring of RCS specific activity is not 

required. The change to modify the TS 3.4.16 

Applicability to include all of MODE 3 and 

MODE 4 is necessary to limit the potential 

radiological consequences of an SGTR or 

MSLB that may occur during these MODES 

and is therefore acceptable from a 

radiological dose perspective. 

3.1.5 TS 3.4.16 Condition A 

TS 3.4.16 Condition A is revised by 

replacing the DEI site specific limit ‘‘> [1.0] 

μCi/gm’’ with the words ‘‘not within limit’’

to be consistent with the revised TS 3.4.16 

LCO format. The site specific DEI limit of ≤ 

[1.0] μCi/gm is contained in SR 3.4.16.2. This 

proposed format change will not alter current 

STS requirements and is acceptable from a 

radiological dose perspective. 

TS 3.4.16 Required Action A.1 is revised 

to remove the reference to Figure 3.4.16–1 

‘‘Reactor Coolant DOSE EQUIVALENT I–131 

Specific Activity Limit versus Percent of 

RATED THERMAL POWER’’ and insert a 

limit of less than or equal to the site specific 

DEI spiking limit. The curve contained in 

Figure 3.4.16–1 was provided by the AEC in 

a June 12, 1974 letter from the AEC on the 

subject, ‘‘Proposed Standard Technical 

Specifications for Primary Coolant Activity.’’

Radiological dose consequence analyses for 

SGTR and MSLB accidents that take into 

account the pre-accident iodine spike do not 

consider the elevated RCS iodine specific 

activities permitted by Figure 3.4.16–1 for 

operation at power levels below 80% RTP. 

Instead, the pre-accident iodine spike 

analyses assume a DEI concentration [60] 

times higher than the corresponding longterm equilibrium value, which corresponds 

to the specific activity limit associated with 

100% RTP operation. It is acceptable that TS 

3.4.16 Required Action A.1 should be based 

on the short term site specific DEI spiking 

limit to be consistent with the assumptions 

contained in the radiological consequence 

analyses. 

3.1.6 TS 3.4.16 Condition B Revision To 

include Action for DEX Limit 

TS 3.4.16 Condition C is replaced with a 

new Condition B [in NUREG–1431; C in 

NUREG–1430 and NUREG–1432] for DEX not 

within limits. This change is made to be 

consistent with the change to the TS 3.4.16 

LCO which requires the DEX specific activity 

to be within limits as discussed above in 

Section 3.1.3. The DEX limit is site specific 

and the numerical value in units of μCi/gm 

is contained in revised SR 3.4.16.1. The site 

specific limit of DEX in μCi/gm is established 

based on the maximum accident analysis 

RCS activity corresponding to 1% fuel clad 

defects with sufficient margin to 

accommodate the exclusion of those isotopes 

based on low concentration, short half life, or 

small dose conversion factors. The primary 

purpose of the TS 3.4.16 LCO on RCS 

specific activity and its associated Conditions 

is to support the dose analyses for DBAs. The 

whole body dose is primarily dependent on 

the noble gas activity, not the non-gaseous 

activity currently captured in the E Bar 

definition. 

The Completion Time for revised TS 3.4.16 

Required Action B.1 will require restoration 

of DEX to within limit in 48 hours. This is 

consistent with the Completion Time for 

current Required Action A.2 for DEI. The 

radiological consequences for the SGTR and 

the MSLB accidents demonstrate that the 

calculated thyroid doses are generally a 

greater percentage of the applicable 

acceptance criteria than the calculated whole 

body doses. It then follows that the 

Completion Time for noble gas activity being 

out of specification in the revised Required 

Action B.1 should be at least as great as the 

Completion Time for iodine specific activity 

being out of specification in current Required 

Action A.2. Therefore the Completion Time 

of 48 hours for revised Required Action B.1 

is acceptable from a radiological dose 

perspective. A Note is also added to the 

revised Required Action B.1 that states LCO 

3.0.4.c is applicable. This Note would allow 

entry into a Mode or other specified 

condition in the LCO Applicability when 

LCO 3.4.16 is not being met and is the same 

Note that is currently stated for Required 

Actions A.1 and A.2. The proposed Note 

would allow entry into the applicable Modes 

from MODE 4 to MODE 1 (power operation) 

while the DEX limit is exceeded and the DEX 

is being restored to within its limit. This 

Mode change is acceptable due to the 

significant conservatism incorporated into 

the DEX specific activity limit, the low 

probability of an event occurring which is 

limiting due to exceeding the DEX specific 

activity limit, and the ability to restore 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
12844 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 

transient specific excursions while the plant 

remains at, or proceeds to power operation. 

3.1.7 TS 3.4.16 Condition C 

TS 3.4.16 Condition C is revised to include 

Condition B (DEX not within limit) if the 

Required Action and associated Completion 

Time of Condition B is not met. This is 

consistent with the changes made to 

Condition B which now provide the same 

completion time for both components of RCS 

specific activity as discussed in the revision 

to Condition B. The revision to Condition C 

also replaces the limit on DEI from the 

deleted Figure 3.4.16–1, with a site specific 

value of > [60] μCi/gm. This change makes 

Condition C consistent with the changes 

made to TS 3.4.16 Required Action A.1. 

The change to TS 3.4.16 Required Action 

C.1 requires the plant to be in MODE 3 

within 6 hours and adds a new Required 

Action C.2 which requires the plant to be in 

MODE 5 within 36 hours. These changes are 

consistent with the changes made to the TS 

3.4.16 Applicability. The revised LCO is 

applicable throughout all of MODES 1 

through 4 to limit the potential radiological 

consequences of an SGTR or MSLB that may 

occur during these MODES. In MODE 5 with 

the RCS loops filled, the steam generators are 

specified as a backup means of decay heat 

removal via natural circulation. In this mode, 

however, due to the reduced temperature of 

the RCS, the probability of a DBA involving 

the release of significant quantities of RCS 

inventory is greatly reduced. Therefore, 

monitoring of RCS specific activity is not 

required. In MODE 5 with the RCS loops not 

filled and MODE 6, the steam generators are 

not used for decay heat removal, the RCS and 

steam generators are depressurized, and 

primary to secondary leakage is minimal. 

Therefore, the monitoring of RCS specific 

activity is not required. 

A new TS 3.4.16 Required Action C.2 

Completion Time of 36 hours is added for the 

plant to reach MODE 5. This Completion 

Time is reasonable, based on operating 

experience, to reach MODE 5 from full power 

conditions in an orderly manner and without 

challenging plant systems and the value of 36 

hours is consistent with other TS which have 

a Completion Time to reach MODE 5. 

3.1.8 SR 3.4.16.1 DEX Surveillance 

The change replaces the current SR 

3.4.16.1 surveillance for RCS gross specific 

activity with a surveillance to verify that the 

site specific reactor coolant DEX specific 

activity is ≤ [X] μCi/gm. This change provides 

a surveillance for the new LCO limit added 

to TS 3.4.16 for DEX. The revised SR 3.4.16.1 

surveillance requires performing a gamma 

isotopic analysis as a measure of the noble 

gas specific activity of the reactor coolant at 

least once every 7 days, which is the same 

frequency required under the current SR 

3.4.16.1 surveillance for RCS gross noniodine specific activity. The surveillance 

provides an indication of any increase in the 

noble gas specific activity. The results of the 

surveillance on DEX allow proper remedial 

action to be taken before reaching the LCO 

limit under normal operating conditions. 

SR 3.4.16.1 is modified by inclusion of a 

NOTE which permits the use of the 

provisions of LCO 3.0.4.c. This allowance 

permits entry into the applicable MODE(S) 

while relying on the ACTIONS. This 

allowance is acceptable due to the significant 

conservatism incorporated into the specific 

activity limit, the low probability of an event 

which is limiting due to exceeding this limit, 

and the ability to restore transient specific 

activity excursions while the plant remains 

at, or proceeds to power operation. This 

allows entry into MODE 4, MODE 3, and 

MODE 2 prior to performing the surveillance. 

This allows the surveillance to be performed 

in any of those MODES, prior to entering 

MODE 1, similar to the current surveillance 

SR 3.4.16.2 for DEI. 

3.1.9 SR 3.4.16.3 Deletion 

The current SR 3.4.16.3 which required the 

determination of E Bar is deleted. TS 3.4.16 

LCO on RCS specific activity supports the 

dose analyses for DBAs, in which the whole 

body dose is primarily dependent on the 

noble gas concentration, not the non-gaseous 

activity currently captured in the E Bar 

definition. With the elimination of the limit 

for RCS gross specific activity and the 

addition of the new LCO limit for noble gas 

specific activity, this SR to determine E Bar 

is no longer required. 

3.2 Precedent 

The technical specifications developed for 

the Westinghouse AP600 and AP1000 

advanced reactor designs incorporate an LCO 

for RCS DEX activity in place of the LCO on 

non-iodine gross specific activity based on E 

Bar. This approach was approved by the NRC 

staff for the AP600 in NUREG–1512, ‘‘Final 

Safety Evaluation Report Related to the 

Certification of the AP600 Standard Design, 

Docket No. 52–003,’’ dated August 1998 and 

for the AP1000 in the NRC letter to 

Westinghouse Electric Company dated 

September 13, 2004. In addition, the curve 

describing the maximum allowable iodine 

concentration during the 48-hour period of 

elevated activity as a function of power level, 

was not included in the TS approved for the 

AP600 and API000 advanced reactor designs. 

4.0 State Consultation 

In accordance with the Commission’s 

regulations, the [lll] State official was 

notified of the proposed issuance of the 

amendment. The State official had [(1) no 

comments or (2) the following comments—

with subsequent disposition by the staff]. 

5.0 Environmental Consideration 

The amendment[s] change[s] a requirement 

with respect to the installation or use of a 

facility component located within the 

restricted area as defined in 10 CFR part 20 

or surveillance requirements. The NRC staff 

has determined that the amendment involves 

no significant increase in the amounts, and 

no significant change in the types, of any 

effluents that may be released offsite, and 

that there is no significant increase in 

individual or cumulative occupational 

radiation exposure. The Commission has 

previously issued a proposed finding that the 

amendment involves no significant hazards 

consideration and there has been no public 

comment on such finding published [DATE] 

([–] FR [–]). Accordingly, the amendment 

meets the eligibility criteria for categorical 

exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment need be prepared 

in connection with the issuance of the 

amendment. 

6.0 Conclusion 

The Commission has concluded, based on 

the considerations discussed above, that (1) 

there is reasonable assurance that the health 

and safety of the public will not be 

endangered by operation in the proposed 

manner, (2) such activities will be conducted 

in compliance with the Commission’s 

regulations, and (3) the issuance of the 

amendment will not be inimical to the 

common defense and security or to the health 

and safety of the public. 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

Description of Amendment Request: 

[LICENSEE] requests adoption of an 

approved change to the Standard Technical 

Specifications (STS) for pressurized water 

reactor (PWR) plants (NUREG–1430, 

NUREG–1431, & NUREG–1432) and plant 

specific technical specifications (TS), to 

replace the current limits on primary coolant 

gross specific activity with limits on primary 

coolant noble gas activity. The noble gas 

activity would be based on DOSE 

EQUIVALENT XE–133 and would take into 

account only the noble gas activity in the 

primary coolant. The changes are consistent 

with NRC approved Industry/Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard 

Technical Specification Change Traveler, 

TSTF–490, Revision 0. 

Basis for proposed no-significant-hazardsconsideration determination: As required by 

10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of 

no-significant-hazards-consideration is 

presented below: 

Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does 

Not Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

Reactor coolant specific activity is not an 

initiator for any accident previously 

evaluated. The Completion Time when 

primary coolant gross activity is not within 

limit is not an initiator for any accident 

previously evaluated. The current variable 

limit on primary coolant iodine 

concentration is not an initiator to any 

accident previously evaluated. As a result, 

the proposed change does not significantly 

increase the probability of an accident. The 

proposed change will limit primary coolant 

noble gases to concentrations consistent with 

the accident analyses. The proposed change 

to the Completion Time has no impact on the 

consequences of any design basis accident 

since the consequences of an accident during 

the extended Completion Time are the same 

as the consequences of an accident during 

the Completion Time. As a result, the 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated are not significantly increased. 

Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does 

Not Create the Possibility of a New or 

Different Kind of Accident from any 

Accident Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change in specific activity 

limits does not alter any physical part of the 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 12845 

plant nor does it affect any plant operating 

parameter. The change does not create the 

potential for a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously calculated. 

Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does 

Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the 

Margin of Safety 

The proposed change revises the limits on 

noble gase radioactivity in the primary 

coolant. The proposed change is consistent 

with the assumptions in the safety analyses 

and will ensure the monitored values protect 

the initial assumptions in the safety analyses. 

Based upon the reasoning presented above 

and the previous discussion of the 

amendment request, the requested change 

does not involve a significant hazards 

consideration. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this llth day 

of ll, ll. 

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Project Manager, 

Plant Licensing Branch [ ], Division of 

Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E7–4939 Filed 3–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Opportunity for Comment on 

Model Safety Evaluation for Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler To Provide Actions for One 

Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/ 

EFW Pump Inoperable Using the 

Consolidated Line Item Improvement 

Process 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Request for comment. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has prepared a 

model safety evaluation (SE) relating to 

proposed changes to Actions in the 

Standard Technical Specifications (STS) 

relating to One Steam Supply to Turbine 

Driven Auxiliary Feedwater / 

Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) 

Pump Inoperable. This change would 

establish a Completion Time in the 

Standard Technical Specifications for 

the Condition where one steam supply 

to the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump 

is inoperable concurrent with an 

inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW 

train. The NRC staff has also prepared 

a model application and model no 

significant hazards consideration 

(NSHC) determination relating to this 

matter. The purpose of these models is 

to permit the NRC to efficiently process 

amendments that propose to adopt the 

associated changes into plant-specific 

technical specifications (TS). Licensees 

of nuclear power reactors to which the 

models apply can request amendments 

confirming the applicability of the SE 

and NSHC determination to their 

reactors. The NRC staff is requesting 

comments on the Model SE, Model 

Application and Model NSHC 

determination prior to announcing their 

availability for referencing in license 

amendment applications. 

DATES: The comment period expires 30 

days from the date of this publication. 

Comments received after this date will 

be considered if it is practical to do so, 

but the Commission can only ensure 

consideration for comments received on 

or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted either electronically or via 

U.S. mail. 

To submit comments or questions on 

a proposed standard technical 

specification change via the Internet, 

use Form for Sending Comments on 

NRC Documents, then select Proposed 

Changes to Technical Specifications. If 

you are commenting on a proposed 

change, please match your comments 

with the correct proposed change by 

copying the title of the proposed change 

from column one to the previous table 

into the appropriate field of the 

comment form. 

Submit written comments to: Chief, 

Rules and Directives Branch, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mail Stop T–6D59, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

Hand deliver comments to 11545 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 

between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on 

Federal workdays. 

Copies of comments received may be 

examined at the NRC’s Public Document 

Room, located at One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland. 

Comments may be submitted by 

electronic mail to CLIIP@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Trent L. Wertz, Technical Specifications 

Branch, Division of Inspection and 

Regional Support, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O–12H2, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone 

301–415–1568. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Regulatory Issue Summary 2000–06, 

‘‘Consolidated Line Item Improvement 

Process for Adopting Standard 

Technical Specification Changes for 

Power Reactors,’’ was issued on March 

20, 2000. The consolidated line item 

improvement process (CLIIP) is 

intended to improve the efficiency and 

transparency of NRC licensing 

processes. This is accomplished by 

processing proposed changes to the 

Standard Technical Specifications (STS) 

(NUREGs 1430—1434) in a manner that 

supports subsequent license amendment 

applications. The CLIIP includes an 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on proposed changes to the STS 

following a preliminary assessment by 

the NRC staff and finding that the 

change will likely be offered for 

adoption by licensees. The CLIIP directs 

the NRC staff to evaluate any comments 

received for a proposed change to the 

STS and to either reconsider the change 

or proceed with announcing the 

availability of the change to licensees. 

Those licensees opting to apply for the 

subject change to TS are responsible for 

reviewing the NRC staff’s evaluation, 

referencing the applicable technical 

justifications, and providing any 

necessary plant specific information. 

Each amendment application submitted 

in response to the notice of availability 

would be processed and noticed in 

accordance with applicable rules and 

NRC procedures. 

This notice for comment involves 

establishing a Completion Time in the 

Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 

3.7.5 of the STS for the Condition where 

one steam supply to the turbine driven 

AFW/EFW pump is inoperable 

concurrent with an inoperable motor 

driven AFW/EFW train. In addition, this 

notice for comment involves changes to 

the STS that establish specific 

Conditions and Action requirements for 

two motor driven AFW/EFW trains are 

inoperable at the same time and for 

when the turbine driven AFW/EFW 

train is inoperable either (a) due solely 

to one inoperable steam supply, or (b) 

due to reasons other than one 

inoperable steam supply. The changes 

were proposed by the Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) in 

TSTF Traveler TSTF–412, Revision 3, 

which is accessible electronically from 

the Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html (Accession No. 

ML070100363). Persons who do not 

have access to ADAMS or who 

encounter problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, should 

contact the NRC Public Document Room 

Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–

397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail 

to pdr@nrc.gov. 

Applicability 

This proposed change to adopt TSTF–

412 is applicable to all pressurized 

water reactors (PWRs) designed by 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES