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
12846 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 

Babcock and Wilcox (B&W), 

Westinghouse, and Combustion 

Engineering (CE). If approved, to 

efficiently process the incoming license 

amendment applications, the NRC staff 

will request that each licensee applying 

for the changes addressed by TSTF–412, 

Revision 3, use the CLIIP to submit a 

License Amendment Request (LAR) that 

conforms to the enclosed Model 

Application (Enclosure 1). Any 

deviations from the Model Application 

should be explained in the licensee’s 

submittal. Significant deviations 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–412. 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. 

Public Notices 

This notice requests comments from 

interested members of the public within 

30 days of the date of publication in the 

Federal Register. Following the NRC 

staff’s evaluation of comments received 

as a result of this notice, the NRC staff 

may reconsider the proposed change or 

may proceed with announcing the 

availability of the change in a 

subsequent notice (perhaps with some 

changes to the SE or proposed NSHC 

determination as a result of public 

comments). 

If the NRC staff announces the 

availability of the change, licensees 

wishing to adopt the change will submit 

an application in accordance with 

applicable rules and other regulatory 

requirements. The NRC staff will in turn 

issue for each application a notice of 

proposed action, which includes a 

proposed NSHC determination. A notice 

of issuance of an amendment of 

operating license will also be issued to 

announce the adoption of TSTF–412 for 

each plant that applies for and receives 

the requested change. 

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: 

The following example of a license 

amendment request (LAR) was prepared by 

the NRC staff to facilitate the adoption of 

Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler TSTF–412, Revision 3 ‘‘Provide 

Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine 

Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable.’’ The 

model provides the expected level of detail 

and content for a LAR to adopt TSTF–412, 

Revision 3. Licensees remain responsible for 

ensuring that their plant-specific LAR fulfills 

their administrative requirements as well as 

NRC regulations. 

Proposed Model License Amendment 

Request 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Document Control Desk, 

Washington, DC 20555. 

Subject: Plant Name 

Docket No. 50—Application for Technical 

Specification Improvement To Revise 

Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine 

Driven Auxiliary Feedwater/Emergency 

Feedwater Pump Inoperable Using the 

Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process 

Gentlemen: 

In accordance with the provisions of 10 

CFR 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 amendment establishes 

Conditions, Required Actions, and 

Completion Times in the Standard Technical 

Specifications (STS) for the Condition where 

one steam supply to the turbine driven 

Auxiliary Feedwater/Emergency Feedwater 

(AFW/EFW) pump is inoperable concurrent 

with an inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW 

train. In addition, this amendment 

establishes changes to the STS that establish 

specific Actions when two motor driven 

AFW/EFW trains are inoperable at the same 

time and 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 change is consistent with NRCapproved Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler, TSTF–412, Revision 3, 

‘‘Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to 

Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump 

Inoperable.’’ The availability of this technical 

specification improvement was announced in 

the Federal Register on [DATE OF NOTICE 

OF AVAILABILITY] as part of the 

consolidated line item improvement process 

(CLIIP). 

Enclosure 1 provides a description of the 

proposed change and confirmation of 

applicability. 

Enclosure 2 provides the existing TS pages 

marked-up to show the proposed change. 

Enclosure 3 provides the existing TS Bases 

pages marked-up to reflect the proposed 

change. 

There are no new regulatory commitments 

associated with this proposed change. 

[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 

2. Proposed Technical Specification 

Changes 

3. Proposed Technical Specification Bases 

Changes 

cc: 

NRR Project Manager 

Regional Office 

Resident Inspector 

State Contact 

Enclosure 1 to Model License Amendment 

Request 

Description and Assessment 

1.0 Description 

The proposed License amendment 

establishes a new Completion Time in 

Standard Technical Specifications Section 

[3.7.5] where one steam supply to the turbine 

driven AFW/EFW pump is inoperable 

concurrent with an inoperable motor driven 

AFW/EFW train. This amendment also 

establishes specific Conditions and Action 

requirements when two motor driven AFW/ 

EFW trains are inoperable at the same time 

and 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 are consistent with NRC 

approved Industry/Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 

Specification Change Traveler, TSTF–412, 

Revision 3, ‘‘Provide Actions for One Steam 

Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump 

Inoperable.’’ The availability of this technical 

specification improvement was announced in 

the Federal Register on [DATE] ([xx FR 

xxxxx]) as part of the consolidated line item 

improvement process (CLIIP). 

2.0 Assessment 

2.1 Applicability of Published Safety 

Evaluation 

[LICENSEE] has reviewed the safety 

evaluation published on [DATE] ([xx FR 

xxxxx]) as part of the CLIIP. This verification 

included a review of the NRC staff’s 

evaluation as well as the supporting 

information provided to support TSTF–412, 

Revision 3. [LICENSEE] has concluded that 

the justifications presented in the TSTF 

proposal and the safety evaluation prepared 

by the NRC staff are applicable to [PLANT, 

UNIT NOS.] and justify this amendment for 

the incorporation of the changes to the 

[PLANT] Technical Specifications. 

2.2 Optional Changes and Variations 

[LICENSEE] is not proposing any variations 

or deviations from the technical specification 

changes described in TSTF–412, Revision 3, 

or the NRC staff’s model safety evaluation 

published in the Federal Register on [DATE] 

([xx FR xxxxx]). 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 12847 

3.0 Regulatory Analysis 

3.1 No Significant Hazards Determination 

[LICENSEE] has reviewed the proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination published on [DATE] 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). 

3.2 Verification and Commitments 

There are no new regulatory commitments 

associated with this proposed change. 

4.0 Environmental Evaluation 

[LICENSEE] has reviewed the 

environmental evaluation included in the 

model safety evaluation published in the 

Federal Register on [DATE] ([xx FR xxxxx]) 

as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has 

concluded that the NRC staff’s findings 

presented in that evaluation are applicable to 

[PLANT] and the evaluation is hereby 

incorporated by reference for this 

application. 

Enclosure 2 to Model License Amendment 

Request: Proposed Technical Specification 

Changes 

Enclosure 3 to Model License Amendment 

Request: Changes To TS Bases Pages 

Proposed Model Safety Evaluation 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office 

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Consolidated 

Line Item Improvement 

Technical Specification Task Force 

Traveler TSTF–412, Revision 3, Provide 

Actions for One Steam Supply to the Turbine 

Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable 

1.0 Introduction 

By application dated [DATE], [LICENSEE 

NAME] (the licensee), submitted a request for 

changes to the [PLANT NAME], Technical 

Specifications (TS) (Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. [MLxxxxxxxxx]). The 

requested change would establish a 

Completion Time 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 and 

establish specific Conditions and Required 

Actions when two motor driven AFW/EFW 

trains are inoperable at the same time and 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. 

These changes were described in a Notice 

of Availability published in the Federal 

Register on [DATE] ([xx FR xxxxx]). 

2.0 Regulatory Evaluation 

In 10 CFR 50.36, the Commission 

established its regulatory requirements 

related to the content of Technical 

Specifications (TS). Pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.36(c), TS are required to include items in 

the following categories: (1) safety limits, 

limiting safety system settings, and limiting 

control settings; (2) limiting conditions for 

operation (LCOs); (3) surveillance 

requirements (SRs); (4) design features; and 

(5) administrative controls. The rule does not 

specify the particular requirements to be 

included in a plant’s TS. 

3.0 Technical Evaluation 

TS 3.7.5, Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW)/ 

Emergency Feedwater (EFW) System 

The AFW/EFW System is designed to 

automatically supply sufficient water to the 

steam generator(s) to remove decay heat upon 

the loss of normal feedwater supply with 

steam generator pressure at the set point of 

the Main Steam Safety Valves (MSSVs). 

Subsequently, the AFW/EFW System 

supplies sufficient water to cool the unit to 

Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System entry 

conditions, with steam being released 

through the Atmospheric Dump Valves 

(ADVs). 

AFW/EFW Systems typically consist of 

two motor driven AFW/EFW pumps and one 

steam turbine driven pump configured into 

three trains. The capacity of the motor driven 

and steam driven AFW/EFW pumps can vary 

by plant. Motor driven pumps typically 

provide 50% or 100% of the required AFW/ 

EFW flow capacity as assumed in the 

accident analysis. Motor driven AFW/EFW 

pumps are typically powered from an 

independent Class 1E power supply and each 

pump train typically feeds half of the steam 

generators, although each pump has the 

capability to be realigned from the control 

room to feed other steam generators. The 

steam turbine driven AFW/EFW pump 

provides either 100% or 200% of the 

required capacity to all steam generators. The 

steam turbine driven pump receives steam 

from two main steam lines upstream of the 

main steam isolation valves. Each of the 

steam feed lines will supply 100% of the 

requirements of the turbine driven AFW/ 

EFW pump. 

LCO 3.7.5, Condition A (as Proposed) 

Condition A is modified to refer to the 

inoperability of a turbine driven AFW/EFW 

train due to an inoperable steam supply, 

instead of referring to the inoperability of a 

turbine driven AFW/EFW pump. This change 

is being proposed in order to make Condition 

A train oriented instead of component 

oriented, consistent with the other 

Conditions that are included in STS 3.7.5. 

The train oriented approach is consistent 

with the preferred approach that is generally 

reflected in the STS, and therefore the 

proposed change is considered to be 

acceptable. 

STS 3.7.5, Condition C (as Proposed) 

A new Condition C with two possible 

Required Actions (C.1 OR C.2) is proposed 

for the turbine driven AFW/EFW train being 

inoperable due to one inoperable steam 

supply and one motor driven AFW/EFW 

train being inoperable at the same time. 

Required Action C.1 requires restoration of 

the affected steam supply to operable status 

within either 24 or 48 hours, depending on 

the capability of the motor driven AFW/EFW 

train that remains operable. Alternatively, 

Required Action C.2 requires restoration of 

the inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW train 

within either 24 or 48 hours, again 

depending on the capability of the motor 

driven AFW/EFW train that remains 

operable. New Condition C provides two 

proposed Completion Times that are 

dependent upon the capacity of the 

remaining operable motor driven AFW/EFW 

train to provide AFW/EFW to the steam 

generators. 

A proposed 24 hour Completion Time is 

applicable to plants that may provide 

insufficient flow to the steam generators 

(SGs) in accordance with accident analyses 

assumptions if a main steam line break 

(MSLB) or feedwater line break (FLB) were to 

occur that renders the remaining steam 

supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW 

pump inoperable (a concurrent single failure 

is not assumed). Insufficient feedwater flow 

could result, for example, if a single motor 

driven AFW/EFW train does not have 

sufficient capacity to satisfy accident 

analyses assumptions, or if the operable 

pump is feeding the faulted SG (i.e. the SG 

that is aligned to the operable steam supply 

for the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump). 

[This would typically apply to plants with 

each AFW/EFW motor driven pump having 

less than 100% of the required flow.] 

Likewise, a proposed 48 hour Completion 

Time is applicable when the remaining 

operable motor driven AFW/EFW train is 

capable of providing sufficient feedwater 

flow in accordance with accident analyses 

assumptions. [This would typically apply to 

plants with each AFW/EFW motor driven 

pump having greater than or equal to 100% 

of the required flow.] 

The STS typically allows a 72 hour 

Completion Time for Conditions where the 

remaining operable equipment is able to 

mitigate postulated accidents without 

assuming a concurrent single active failure. 

In this particular case, a 24 hour Completion 

Time is proposed for the situation where the 

AFW/EFW system would be able to perform 

its function for most postulated events, and 

would only be challenged by a MSLB or FLB 

that renders the remaining operable steam 

supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW 

pump inoperable. Additionally, depending 

on the capacity of the operable motor driven 

AFW/EFW pump, it may be able to mitigate 

MSLB and FLB accidents during those 

instances when it is not aligned to the faulted 

SG. The selection of 24 hours for the 

Completion Time is based on the remaining 

operable steam supply to the turbine driven 

AFW/EFW pump and the continued 

functionality of the turbine driven AFW/EFW 

train, the remaining operable motor driven 

AFW/EFW train, and the low likelihood of an 

event occurring during this 24 hour period 

that would challenge the capability of the 

AFW/EFW system to provide feedwater to 

the SGs. The proposed Completion Time for 

this particular situation is consistent with 

what was approved for Waterford 3 by 

License Amendment 173 for a similar 

Condition (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML012840538), and it is commensurate with 

the STS in that the proposed Completion 

Time is much less than the 72 hours that is 

allowed for the situation where accident 

mitigation capability is maintained. 

Therefore, the NRC staff agrees that the 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
12848 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 

proposed 24 hour Completion Time is 

acceptable for this particular situation. 

A 48 hour Completion Time is proposed 

for the situation where the remaining 

operable motor driven AFW/EFW train is 

able to mitigate postulated accidents in 

accordance with accident analyses 

assumptions without assuming a concurrent 

single active failure. The selection of 48 

hours is based on the continued capability of 

the AFW/EFW system to perform its 

function, while at the same time recognizing 

that this Condition represents a higher level 

of degradation than one inoperable AFW/ 

EFW train which is currently allowed for up 

to 72 hours by STS 3.7.5. The proposed 48 

hour Completion Time represents an 

appropriate balance between the more severe 

24 hour situation discussed in the previous 

paragraph and the less severe Condition that 

is afforded a 72 hour Completion Time by the 

current STS. Therefore, the NRC staff agrees 

that the proposed 48 hour Completion Time 

is acceptable for this particular situation. 

STS 3.7.5, Condition D (as Proposed) 

The current Condition C is renamed as 

Condition D. This Condition has been 

modified to incorporate changes brought on 

by the addition of new Condition C. The first 

Condition has been modified and now 

applies to the situation where the Required 

Action and associated Completion Time of 

Condition A, B, or C are not met. This section 

of Condition D is modified to also apply to 

the new Condition C when the Completion 

Time that is specified for new Condition C 

is not met. The NRC staff considers this to 

be appropriate and consistent with existing 

STS 3.7.5 requirements to place the plant in 

a mode where the Condition does not apply 

when the Required Actions are not met. 

The second Condition following the first 

‘‘OR’’ in Condition D is modified from ‘‘Two 

AFW/EFW trains inoperable in MODE 1, 2, 

or 3’’ to ‘‘Two AFW/EFW trains inoperable 

in MODE 1, 2, or 3 for reasons other than 

Condition C.’’ This change is necessary to 

recognize the situation specified by 

Condition C (as proposed) where one motor 

driven AFW/EFW train is allowed to be 

inoperable at the same time that the turbine 

driven AFW/EFW train is inoperable due to 

an inoperable steam supply to the pump 

turbine. Therefore, the NRC staff considers 

the proposed change to be acceptable. 

The Required Actions associated with this 

Condition were renamed from C.1 AND C.2 

to D.1 AND D.2 but not otherwise changed. 

Required Action D.1 requires the plant to be 

in Mode 3 in 6 hours, and Required Action 

D.2 requires the plant to be in Mode 4 in 18 

hours. This change is purely editorial as no 

other changes are involved. Therefore, this 

proposed change is acceptable. 

STS 3.7.5, Condition E (as Proposed) 

Because current Condition C is renamed as 

Condition D, current Condition D is renamed 

as Condition E. This change is purely 

editorial as no other changes are involved. 

Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable. 

STS 3.7.5, Condition F (as Proposed) 

Because current Condition D is renamed as 

Condition E, current Condition E is renamed 

as Condition F. This change is purely 

editorial as no other changes are involved. 

Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable. 

STS 3.7.5 Bases (as Proposed) 

Though changes to the STS Bases do not 

require NRC approval per se, changes to the 

STS Bases were reviewed to assess their 

consistency with the proposed changes to 

STS 3.7.5. The proposed changes to the STS 

Bases appeared to be consistent with the 

proposed changes to STS 3.7.5. 

4.0 State Consultation 

In accordance with the Commission’s 

regulations, the [STATE] State official was 

notified of the proposed issuance of the 

amendments. The State official had [(1) no 

comments or (2) the following comments—

with subsequent disposition by the NRC 

staff]. 

5.0 Environmental Consideration 

The amendment changes 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 

and changes 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 [(1) no 

public comment on such finding (2) the 

following comments with subsequent 

disposition by the NRC staff ([xx FR xxxxx, 

DATE]). 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 

amendments will not be inimical to the 

common defense and security or to the health 

and safety of the public. 

The proposed changes are consistent with 

NRC practices and policies as generally 

reflected in the STS and as reflected by 

applicable precedents that have been 

approved. Therefore, the NRC staff has 

determined that the proposed changes to STS 

3.7.5 should be approved. 

Model No Significant Hazards Consideration 

Determination 

Description of amendment request: The 

requested change, applicable to all 

pressurized water reactors (PWRs) designed 

by Babcock and Wilcox (B&W), 

Westinghouse, and Combustion Engineering 

(CE), would provide changes to the Actions 

in the Standard Technical Specifications 

(STS) relating to One Steam Supply to 

Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater/ 

Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) Pump 

Inoperable. The proposed change is 

described in Technical Specification Task 

Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change Traveler 

TSTF–412, Revision 3, and was described in 

the Notice of Availability published in the 

Federal Register on [DATE] ([xx FR xxxxx]). 

Basis for proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination: As required by 

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

no significant hazards consideration is 

presented below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater 

(AFW/EFW) System is not an initiator of any 

design basis accident or event, and therefore 

the proposed changes do not increase the 

probability of any accident previously 

evaluated. The proposed changes to address 

the condition of one or two motor driven 

AFW/EFW trains inoperable and the turbine 

driven AFW/EFW train inoperable due to one 

steam supply inoperable do not change the 

response of the plant to any accidents. 

The proposed changes do not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors nor 

alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 

configuration of the facility or the manner in 

which the plant is operated and maintained. 

The proposed changes do not adversely affect 

the ability of structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs) to perform their intended 

safety function to mitigate the consequences 

of an initiating event within the assumed 

acceptance limits. The proposed changes do 

not affect the source term, containment 

isolation, or radiological release assumptions 

used in evaluating the radiological 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do 

not increase the types and amounts of 

radioactive effluent that may be released 

offsite, nor significantly increase individual 

or cumulative occupational/public radiation 

exposures. 

Therefore, the changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not result in a 

change in the manner in which the AFW/ 

EFW System provides plant protection. The 

AFW/EFW System will continue to supply 

water to the steam generators to remove 

decay heat and other residual heat by 

delivering at least the minimum required 

flow rate to the steam generators. There are 

no design changes associated with the 

proposed changes. The changes to the 

Conditions and Required Actions do not 

change any existing accident scenarios, nor 

create any new or different accident 

scenarios. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 12849 

The changes do not involve a physical 

alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 

different type of equipment will be installed) 

or a change in the methods governing normal 

plant operation. In addition, the changes do 

not impose any new or different 

requirements or eliminate any existing 

requirements. The changes do not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis. The 

proposed changes are consistent with the 

safety analysis assumptions and current plant 

operating practice. 

Therefore, the changes do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not alter the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined. The safety analysis 

acceptance criteria are not impacted by these 

changes. The proposed changes will not 

result in plant operation in a configuration 

outside the design basis. 

Therefore, it is concluded that the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

Based on the above, the proposed change 

involves no significant hazards consideration 

under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 

50.92(c), and accordingly, a finding of no 

significant hazards consideration is justified. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this XXth 

day of XX, 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Project Manager, 

Plant Licensing Branch [ ], Division of 

Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E7–4940 Filed 3–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

Upon written request, copies available 

from: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of Filings and 

Information Services, Washington, DC 

20549. 

Extension: Rule 17Ad–11, SEC File No. 270–

261, OMB Control No. 3235–0274. 

Notice is hereby given that pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget a 

request for extension of the previously 

approved collection of information 

discussed below. 

• Rule 17Ad–11: Reports Regarding 

Aged Record Differences, Buy-ins, and 

Failure To Post Certificate Detail To 

Master Securityholder Files 

Rule 17Ad–11 (17 CFR 240.17Ad–11) 

requires all registered transfer agents to 

report to issuers and the appropriate 

regulatory agency in the event that aged 

record differences exceed certain dollar 

value thresholds. An aged record 

difference occurs when an issuer’s 

records do not agree with those of 

securityowners as indicated, for 

instance, on certificates presented to the 

transfer agent for purchase, redemption 

or transfer. In addition, the rule requires 

transfer agents to report to the 

appropriate regulatory agency in the 

event of a failure to post certificate 

detail to the master securityholder file 

within 5 business days of the time 

required by Rule 17Ad–10 (17 CFR 

240.17 Ad–10). Also, transfer agents 

must maintain a copy of each report 

prepared under Rule 17Ad–11 for a 

period of three years following the date 

of the report. This recordkeeping 

requirement assists the Commission and 

other regulatory agencies with 

monitoring transfer agents and ensuring 

compliance with the rule. 

Because the information required by 

Rule 17Ad–11 is already available to 

transfer agents, any collection burden 

for small transfer agents is minimal. The 

staff estimates that the average number 

of hours necessary to comply with Rule 

17Ad–11 is one hour annually. Based 

upon past submissions, the total burden 

is 50 hours annually for the transfer 

agent industry. 

The retention period for the 

recordkeeping requirement under Rule 

17Ad–11 is three years following the 

date of a report prepared pursuant to the 

rule. The recordkeeping requirement 

under Rule 17Ad–11 is mandatory to 

assist the Commission and other 

regulatory agencies with monitoring 

transfer agents and ensuring compliance 

with the rule. This rule does not involve 

the collection of confidential 

information. Please note that an agency 

may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid control 

number. 

Comments should be directed to (i) 

Desk Officer for the Securities and 

Exchange Commission, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Room 10102, New Executive Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by 

sending an e-mail to: 

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov; and (ii) R. 

Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information 

Officer, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 

6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, 

VA 22312 or send an e-mail to: 

PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov. Comments must 

be submitted to OMB within 30 days of 

this notice. 

Dated: March 7, 2007. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–4893 Filed 3–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Submissions for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of Filings and 

Information Services, Washington, DC 

20549. 

Extension: Form 10–QSB, OMB Control No. 

3235–0416, SEC File No. 270–369. 

Notice is hereby given that pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget this 

request for extension of the previously 

approved collection of information 

discussed below. 

Form 10–QSB (17 CFR 249.308b) is a 

quarterly report form that is available to 

‘‘small business issuers’’ as defined by 

regulations under the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’) 

(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), and is used by 

such issuers to satisfy their quarterly 

reporting obligations pursuant to 

Section 13 and Section 15(d) of the 

Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m and 

78o(d)). Form 10–QSB provides a 

comprehensive overview of the small 

business issuer’s business, although its 

requirements call for slightly less 

detailed information than required by 

Form 10–Q (17 CFR 249.308a). The 

information provided is mandatory and 

all information is made available to the 

public upon request. Form 10–QSB 

takes approximately 182 hours per 

response to prepare and is filed by 4,066 

respondents three times a year for a total 

of 12,198 responses. We estimate that 

75% of the 182 hours per response 

(136.5 hours) is prepared by the 

company for a total annual reporting 

burden of 1,665,027 hours (136.5 hours 

per response × 12,198 responses). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES