Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 50 / Thursday, March 15, 2007 / Notices 12223 

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 [___] 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 

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 _ day of 

___, XXXX. 

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Project Manager, 

Plant Licensing Branch [ ], 

Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E7–4754 Filed 3–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Opportunity To Comment on 

Model Safety Evaluation and Model 

License Amendment Request on 

Technical Specification Improvement 

Regarding Relocation of Departure 

From Nucleate Boiling Parameters to 

the Core Operating Limits Report for 

Combustion Engineering Pressurized 

Water Reactors 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 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 changes to Standard 

Technical Specifications (STSs) for 

Combustion Engineering Pressurized 

Water Reactors (PWRs), NUREG–1432, 

Revision 3.1. This change would allow 

the numerical limits located in technical 

specification (TS) 3.4.1, ‘‘RCS Pressure, 

Temperature, and Flow [Departure from 

Nucleate Boiling (DNB)] Limits’’ to be 

replaced with references to the Core 

Operating Limits Report (COLR). 

Associated changes are also included for 

the TS 3.4.1 Bases, and TS 5.6.3 ‘‘Core 

Operating Limits Report (COLR).’’ The 

Technical Specifications Task Force 

(TSTF) proposed these changes to the 

TS in TSTF–487 Revision 0, ‘‘Relocate 

DNB Parameters to the COLR.’’

The purpose of the model SE, LAR, 

and NSHC is to permit the NRC to 

efficiently process amendments to 

incorporate these changes into plantspecific TSs for Combustion 

Engineering 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. 

The NRC staff is requesting comments 

on the model LAR, model SE and NSHC 

determination before 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 is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
12224 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 50 / Thursday, March 15, 2007 / Notices 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted either electronically or via 

U.S. mail. 

Submit written comments to: Chief, 

Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing 

Branch, Division of Administrative 

Services, Office of Administration, Mail 

Stop: T–6 D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Hand deliver comments to: 11545 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

on Federal workdays. Submit comments 

by electronic mail to: CLIIP@nrc.gov. 

Copies of comments received may be 

examined at the NRC’s Public Document 

Room, One White Flint North, Public 

File Area O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross 

Telson, 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) 415–2256. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Regulatory Issue Summary 2000–06, 

‘‘Consolidated Line Item Improvement 

Process [CLIIP] for STSs 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 TS in a manner that 

supports subsequent license amendment 

applications. The CLIIP includes an 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on proposed changes to the TS 

following a preliminary assessment by 

the NRC staff and finding that the 

change will likely be offered for 

adoption by licensees. At the conclusion 

of the notice for comment period the 

NRC staff will evaluate any comments 

received for the proposed TS change 

and 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. Following the public 

comment period, the model LAR and 

model SE will be finalized, and posted 

on the NRC web page. 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 the replacement 

of the departure from nucleate boiling 

(DNB) parameter limits in TS 3.4.1 with 

references to the defined formal COLR 

for the values of these limits. With this 

alternative, reload license amendments 

for the sole purpose of updating the 

cycle specific DNB parameter limits will 

be unnecessary. This change would 

allow licensees of Combustion 

Engineering PWRs to recalculate DNB 

parameter limits in the COLR using 

NRC-approved methodologies. By letter 

dated June 20, 2005, the TSTF proposed 

these changes for incorporation into the 

STSs as TSTF–487, Revision 0. These 

changes are based on the NRC Generic 

Letter 88–16 ‘‘Removal of Cycle-Specific 

Parameter Limits from Technical 

Specifications.’’ This document is 

accessible electronically from the 

Agency-wide Documents Access and 

Management System’s (ADAMS) Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML041830597) 

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

reading-rm/adams.html. 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 

These proposed changes will revise 

LCO 3.4.1, SR 3.4.1, the Bases 

associated with TS 3.4.1, and TS 5.6.3 

for 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–487 

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 

NRC 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–487. 

Public Notices 

This notice requests comments from 

interested members of the public within 

30 days of the date of this publication. 

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 model LAR, 

model SE or model 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 consideration of 

issuance of amendment to facility 

operating license(s), a proposed NSHC 

determination, and an opportunity for a 

hearing. A notice of issuance of an 

amendment to operating license(s) will 

also be issued to announce the revised 

requirements for each plant that applies 

for and receives the requested change. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 7th 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. 

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 

SPECIFICATIONS TASK FORCE (TSTF) 

TRAVELER TSTF–487, REVISION 0 

‘‘RELOCATE DNB PARAMETERS TO THE 

COLR.’’ THE MODEL PROVIDES THE 

EXPECTED LEVEL OF DETAIL AND 

CONTENT FOR AN APPLICATION TO 

ADOPT TSTF–487, 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–487, 

REVISION 0, ‘‘RELOCATE DNB 

PARAMETERS TO THE COLR’’

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 allow [PLANT NAME] to replace the 

DNB numeric limits in TS with references to 

the core operating limits report (COLR). 

The changes are consistent with NRCapproved Industry Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 

Specification Change Traveler, TSTF–487 

Revision 0. 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). 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 50 / Thursday, March 15, 2007 / Notices 12225 

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 revise Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.4.1, ‘‘RCS Pressure, 

Temperature, and Flow [Departure from 

Nucleate Boiling (DNB)] Limits,’’ the Bases 

for TS 3.4.1, and TS 5.6.3 ‘‘Core Operating 

Limits Report (COLR),’’ to allow [PLANT 

NAME] to place the DNB numeric limits with 

references to the COLR. 

Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

change traveler TSTF–487, Revision 0 

‘‘Relocate DNB Parameters to the COLR’’ 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–487 

Revision 0, the following changes are 

proposed: 

• Revise the limiting conditions for 

operation and surveillance requirements in 

TS 3.4.1 to replace the DNB numeric limits 

for reactor coolant pressure, temperature, and 

flow with references to limits for those 

parameters calculated in the COLR. 

• Revise the bases associated with TS 3.4.1 

to reflect that the DNB numeric limits are 

contained in the COLR. 

• Revise TS 5.6.3 to add the methodology 

requirements for calculating the DNB 

numeric limits in the COLR, 

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–487, Revision 0. 

4.0 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS 

[LICENSEE] has reviewed Generic Letter 

88–16, and the model SE published on 

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

Notice for Comment. [LICENSEE] has applied 

the methodology in Generic Letter 88–16 to 

develop the proposed TS changes. 

[LICENSEE] has also concluded that the 

justifications presented in TSTF–487, 

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–487, 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. 

Proposed Safety Evaluation, U.S Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation. 

Consolidated Line Item Improvement 

Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF). 

Change TSTF–487, Revision 0, RELOCATE 

DNB PARAMETERS TO THE COLR. 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

By application dated [Date], (Ref. 7.1), the 

[Name of Licensee] (the licensee) requested 

changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) 

for the [Name of Facility]. 

The proposed changes would revise TS 

3.4.1, the associated bases of TS 3.4.1, and TS 

5.6.3 to replace the departure from nucleate 

boiling (DNB) parameters limits in Technical 

Specifications (TSs) with references to the 

Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). These 

changes would allow the licensee to 

recalculate the DNB parameter limits using 

NRC-approved methodologies without the 

need for a license amendment request (LAR). 

The proposed changes include the 

following: 

• Change TS 3.4.1, ‘‘RCS Pressure, 

Temperature, and Flow [Departure from 

Nucleate Boiling (DNB)] Limits,’’ Limiting 

Conditions for Operation (LCO) 3.4.1 and the 

associated Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 

to replace the specific limit values of RCS 

pressurizer pressure, cold leg temperature, 

and RCS total flow rate with ‘‘the limits 

specified in the COLR.’’

• Change the Bases for LCO 3.4.1 to reflect 

that the DNB limits are specified in the 

COLR. 

• Change Section 5.6.3 of TS, ‘‘Core 

Operating Limits Report (COLR)’’ to include 

the NRC approved methodologies and 

requirements used to calculate the DNB 

limits. 

Generic Letter (GL) 88–16 titled ‘‘Removal 

of Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits from 

Technical Specifications’’ (Ref. 7.2) is the 

regulatory guidance for this change. 

2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION 

The Commission’s regulatory requirements 

related to the content of Technical 

Specifications are specified in Title 10 CFR 

(Code of Federal Regulations), Section 50.36, 

‘‘Technical Specifications.’’ 10 CFR 

50.36(c)(2)(i) defines that limiting conditions 

for operation are the lowest functional 

capability or performance levels of 

equipment required for safe operation of the 

facility. For the DNB parameters, 10 CFR 

50.36(c)(2)(ii)(B) Criterion 2 applies, which 

requires that TS LCOs be established for each 

process variable, design feature, or operating 

restriction that is an initial condition of a 

design basis accident or transient analysis 

that either assumes the failure of or presents 

a challenge to the integrity of a fission 

product barrier. 

LARs are required for each fuel cycle 

design that results in changes to parameter 

limits specified in TS. To meet 10 CFR 

50.36(c)(2)(ii) requirements and alleviate the 

need for LARs to update parameter limits 

every fuel cycle, the NRC issued GL 88–16 

with specific guidance for replacing the limit 

values for cycle-specific parameters in the 

TSs with references to an owner-controlled 

document, namely, the COLR. The guidance 

in GL 88–16 includes the following three 

actions: 

1. The addition of the definition of a 

named formal report (i.e., Core Operating 

Limits Report) in TS that includes the values 

of cycle-specific parameter limits that have 

been established using an NRC-approved 

methodology and consistent with all 

applicable limits of the safety analyses. 

2. The addition of an administrative 

reporting requirement (in TS 5.6.3) to submit 

the formal report on cycle-specific parameter 

limits to the Commission for information. 

3. The modification of individual TS to 

note that the specific parameters shall be 

maintained within the limits provided in the 

defined formal report (COLR). 

The proposed change has been evaluated 

against GL 88–16 and found to be consistent 

with that regulatory guidance. 

3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION 

TS LCO 3.4.1 specifies the limit values of 

the DNB parameters to assure that the 

pressurizer pressure, the RCS cold leg 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
12226 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 50 / Thursday, March 15, 2007 / Notices 

temperature, and RCS flow rate during 

operation at rated thermal power (RTP) will 

be maintained within the limits assumed in 

the safety analyses in the final safety analysis 

report (FSAR). The safety analyses of 

anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs) 

and accidents assume initial conditions 

within the envelope of normal steady state 

operation at the RTP to demonstrate that the 

applicable acceptance criteria, including the 

specified acceptable fuel design limits (such 

as DNB ratio) and RCS pressure boundary 

design conditions, are met for each event 

analyzed. The TS limits placed on the DNBrelated parameters ensure that these 

parameters, when appropriate measurement 

uncertainties are applied, will be bounded by 

those assumed in the safety analyses, and 

thereby provide assurance that the applicable 

acceptance criteria will not be violated 

should a transient or accident occur while 

operating at the RTP. 

It is essential to safety that the plant is 

operated within the DNB parameter limits. 

This change retains the requirement to 

maintain the plant within the DNB parameter 

limits in LCO 3.4.1 along with the SR 

verification for each of the DNB parameters. 

As these parameter limits are calculated 

using NRC-approved methodologies and are 

consistent with all applicable limits of the 

plant safety analyses, this change does not 

affect nuclear safety. 

TS 5.6.3, ‘‘Core Operating Limits Report 

(COLR),’’ specifies that the core operating 

limits shall be determined such that all 

applicable limits of the safety analyses are 

met, and that the analytical methods used to 

determine the core operating limits shall be 

those previously reviewed and approved by 

the NRC. This change modifies the list of 

NRC approved methodologies in TS 5.6.3 to 

include those used to calculate the DNB 

limits on pressurizer pressure, RCS cold leg 

temperature, and RCS total flow rate. The 

limit values of these parameters in the COLR 

will comply with existing operating fuel 

cycle analysis requirements, and are initial 

conditions assumed in safety analyses. 

Replacing of the DNB parameter values with 

references to the COLR does not lessen the 

requirement for compliance with all 

applicable limits. 

Any revisions to the safety analyses that 

require prior NRC approval will be identified 

by the 10 CFR 50.59 review process. TS 5.6.3 

also specifies that the COLR, including any 

midcycle revisions or supplements, shall be 

provided upon issuance for each reload cycle 

to the NRC. This will allow NRC staff to 

continue trending the information even 

though prior NRC approval of the changes to 

these limits will not be required. 

Section 50.36 requires LCOs to contain the 

lowest functional capability or performance 

levels of equipment for safe operation of the 

facility. The NRC staff finds that the 

proposed change to LCO 3.4.1 referencing the 

specific values of the DNB parameter limits 

in TS in the COLR continues to meet the 

regulatory requirement of 10 CFR 

50.36(c)(2)(ii)(B) (Criterion 2), and follows 

the guidance described in GL 88–16. The 

NRC staff, therefore, concludes that this 

change is acceptable. 

For safety analyses of transients or 

accidents, various sections of Chapter 15 of 

the Standard Review Plan (Ref. 7.3) specify 

that the reactor is initially at the RTP plus 

uncertainty, and the RCS flow is at nominal 

design flow including the measurement 

uncertainty. If one or more DNB parameter 

limits change, and these changes do not 

support the RTP, a license amendment would 

be required to either reduce the RTP or limit 

the plant operation at a level below the RTP. 

10 CFR 50 Appendix K requires that the loss 

of coolant accident analysis be performed at 

102% of the RTP. Other plant-specific 

analyses can contain an initial condition to 

be performed at RTP. To insure a clear 

understanding of this requirement the 

following statement has been added to TS 

5.6.3: ‘‘The maximum thermal power from 

the COLR shall be equal to or greater than the 

RTP defined in TS 1.1.’’

4.0 STATE CONSULTATION 

In accordance with the Commission’s 

regulations, the [________] 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 NRC staff has reviewed this proposed 

change to replace the values of the DNB 

parameters in TS with references to the 

COLR. This change will allow the licensee 

the flexibility to manage operating and core 

design margins associated with the DNB 

parameters without the need for cyclespecific LARs. Any future revisions to safety 

analyses that require prior NRC approval will 

be identified by the 10 CFR 50.59 review 

process. Based on this evaluation the NRC 

staff concludes that this change meets the 

regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 50.36, 

follows the guidance described in GL 88–16, 

and is acceptable. 

7.0 REFERENCES 

7.1 License Amendment Request dated 

[MMM, DD, YYYY], [Title of Amendment 

Request], ADAMS Accession No. 

[MLXXXXXXXXX]. 

7.2 Generic Letter 88–16 dated October 4, 

1988, ‘‘Removal of Cycle-Specific Parameter 

Limits from Technical Specifications,’’

ADAMS Accession No ML041830597. 

7.3 NUREG–0800, ‘‘Standard Review 

Plan.’’

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

Description of Amendment Request: [Plant 

name] requests adoption of an approved 

change to the standard technical 

specifications (STS) for Combustion 

Engineering Pressurized Water Reactor 

(PWR) Plants (NUREG–1432) and plantspecific technical specifications (TS), to 

allow replacing the departure from nucleate 

boiling (DNB) parameter limits with 

references to the core operating limits report 

(COLR) in accordance with Generic Letter 

88–16, ‘‘Removal of Cycle Specific Parameter 

Limits from Technical Specifications,’’ dated 

October 4, 1988. The changes are consistent 

with NRC approved Industry/Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard 

Technical Specification Change Traveler, 

TSTF–487. 

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: Does the Proposed Change 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment replaces the 

limit values of the reactor coolant system 

(RCS) DNB parameters (i.e., pressurizer 

pressure, RCS cold leg temperature, and RCS 

flow rate) in TS with references to the COLR, 

in accordance with the guidance of Generic 

Letter 88–16, to allow these parameter limit 

values to be recalculated without a license 

amendment. The proposed amendment does 

not involve operation of any required 

structures, systems, or components (SSCs) in 

a manner or configuration different from 

those previously recognized or evaluated. 

The cycle-specific values in the COLR must 

be calculated using the NRC-approved 

methodologies listed in TS 5.6.5, ‘‘Core 

Operating Limits Report (COLR).’’ Replacing 

the RCS DNB parameter limits in TS with 

references to the COLR will maintain existing 

operating fuel cycle analysis requirements. 

Because these parameter limits are 

determined using the NRC-approved 

methodologies, the acceptance criteria 

established for the safety analyses of various 

transients and accidents will continue to be 

met. Therefore, neither the probability nor 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated will be increased by the proposed 

change. 

Therefore, operation of the facility in 

accordance with the proposed amendment 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: Does the Proposed Change 

Create the Possibility of a New or Different 

Kind of Accident from any Previously 

Evaluated? 

Response: No. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 50 / Thursday, March 15, 2007 / Notices 12227 

The proposed amendment to replace the 

RCS DNB parameter limits in TS with 

references to the COLR does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant, nor a change 

or addition of a system function. The 

proposed amendment does not involve 

operation of any required SSCs in a manner 

or configuration different from those 

previously recognized or evaluated. No new 

failure mechanisms will be introduced by the 

proposed change. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 3: Does the Proposed Change 

Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin 

of Safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment to replace the 

RCS DNB parameter limits in TS with 

references to the COLR will continue to 

maintain the margin of safety. The DNB 

parameter limits specified in the COLR will 

be determined based on the safety analyses 

of transients and accidents, performed using 

the NRC-approved methodologies that show 

that, with appropriate measurement 

uncertainties of these parameters accounted 

for, the acceptance criteria for each of the 

analyzed transients are met. This provides 

the same margin of safety as the limit values 

currently specified in the TS. Any future 

revisions to the safety analyses that require 

prior NRC approval are identified per the 10 

CFR 50.59 review process. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment would 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

Based on the staff’s review of the licensee’s 

analysis, the staff concludes that the 

proposed amendment presents 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. 

[Lit. face SIG] 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this lll 

day of lll, 2007. 

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Project Manager 

Plant Licensing Branch [ ] 

Division of Operating Reactor Licensing 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

[FR Doc. E7–4752 Filed 3–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

Required Interest Rate Assumption for 

Determining Variable-Rate Premium for 

Single-Employer Plans; Interest 

Assumptions for Multiemployer Plan 

Valuations Following Mass Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice of interest rates and 

assumptions. 

SUMMARY: This notice informs the public 

of the interest rates and assumptions to 

be used under certain Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation regulations. These 

rates and assumptions are published 

elsewhere (or can be derived from rates 

published elsewhere), but are collected 

and published in this notice for the 

convenience of the public. Interest rates 

are also published on the PBGC’s Web 

site (http://www.pbgc.gov). 

DATES: The required interest rate for 

determining the variable-rate premium 

under part 4006 applies to premium 

payment years beginning in March 

2007. The interest assumptions for 

performing multiemployer plan 

valuations following mass withdrawal 

under part 4281 apply to valuation dates 

occurring in April 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine B. Klion, Manager, Regulatory 

and Policy Division, Legislative and 

Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202–326–

4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the 

Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800–

877–8339 and ask to be connected to 

202–326–4024.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Variable-Rate Premiums 

Section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) of the 

Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act of 1974 (ERISA) and § 4006.4(b)(1) 

of the PBGC’s regulation on Premium 

Rates (29 CFR part 4006) prescribe use 

of an assumed interest rate (the 

‘‘required interest rate’’) in determining 

a single-employer plan’s variable-rate 

premium. Pursuant to the Pension 

Protection Act of 2006, for premium 

payment years beginning in 2006 or 

2007, the required interest rate is the 

‘‘applicable percentage’’ of the annual 

rate of interest determined by the 

Secretary of the Treasury on amounts 

invested conservatively in long-term 

investment grade corporate bonds for 

the month preceding the beginning of 

the plan year for which premiums are 

being paid (the ‘‘premium payment 

year’’). 

On February 2, 2007 (at 72 FR 4955), 

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

published final regulations containing 

updated mortality tables for determining 

current liability under section 412(l)(7) 

of the Code and section 302(d)(7) of 

ERISA for plan years beginning on or 

after January 1, 2007. As a result, in 

accordance with section 

4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) of ERISA, the 

‘‘applicable percentage’’ to be used in 

determining the required interest rate 

for plan years beginning in 2007 is 100 

percent. 

The required interest rate to be used 

in determining variable-rate premiums 

for premium payment years beginning 

in March 2007 is 5.85 percent (i.e., 100 

percent of the 5.85 percent composite 

corporate bond rate for February 2007 as 

determined by the Treasury). 

The following table lists the required 

interest rates to be used in determining 

variable-rate premiums for premium 

payment years beginning between April 

2006 and March 2007. 

For premium payment years 

beginning in: 

The required 

interest rate is: 

April 2006 ............................. 5.01 

May 2006 .............................. 5.25 

June 2006 ............................. 5.35 

July 2006 .............................. 5.36 

August 2006 ......................... 5.36 

September 2006 ................... 5.19 

October 2006 ........................ 5.06 

November 2006 .................... 5.05 

December 2006 .................... 4.90 

January 2007 ........................ 5.75 

February 2007 ...................... 5.89 

March 2007 ........................... 5.85 

Multiemployer Plan Valuations 

Following Mass Withdrawal 

The PBGC’s regulation on Duties of 

Plan Sponsor Following Mass 

Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281) 

prescribes the use of interest 

assumptions under the PBGC’s 

regulation on Allocation of Assets in 

Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 

4044). The interest assumptions 

applicable to valuation dates in April 

2007 under part 4044 are contained in 

an amendment to part 4044 published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

Tables showing the assumptions 

applicable to prior periods are codified 

in appendix B to 29 CFR part 4044. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 8th day 

of March 2007. 

Vincent K. Snowbarger, 

Interim Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E7–4679 Filed 3–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. IC–27750; 812–13336] 

Vanguard Bond Index Funds, et al.; 

Notice of Application 

March 9, 2007. 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’). 

ACTION: Notice of an application for an 

order under section 6(c) of the 

Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 

‘‘Act’’) for exemptions from sections 

2(a)(32), 18(f)(1), 18(i), 22(d) and 24(d) 

of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act, 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES