Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Notices 14623 

behalf he will be involved in the NRClicensed activities. In the notification, 

Mr. James Francis Mattocks shall 

include a statement of his commitment 

to compliance with regulatory 

requirements and the basis upon which 

the Commission should have confidence 

that he will now comply with 

applicable NRC requirements. 

The Director, OE, may, in writing, 

relax or rescind any of the above 

conditions upon demonstration by Mr. 

James Francis Mattocks of good cause. 

V 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. 

James Francis Mattocks must, and any 

other person adversely affected by this 

Order may, submit an answer to this 

Order within 20 days of the date of this 

Order or other such time as may be 

specified in this Order. In addition, Mr. 

James Francis Mattocks and any other 

person adversely affected by this Order 

may request a hearing on this Order 

within 20 days of the date of this Order. 

Where good cause is shown, 

consideration will be given to extending 

the time to request a hearing. A request 

for extension of time must be made in 

writing to the Director, Office of 

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and include a statement of good 

cause for the extension. The answer may 

consent to this Order. Unless the answer 

consents to this Order, the answer shall, 

in writing and under oath or 

affirmation, specifically admit or deny 

each allegation or charge made in this 

Order and shall set forth the matters of 

fact and law on which Mr. James 

Francis Mattocks or other person 

adversely affected relies and the reasons 

as to why the Order should not have 

been issued. Any answer or request for 

a hearing shall be submitted to the 

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Attn: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 

20555–0001. Copies also shall be sent to 

the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, to the 

Assistant General Counsel for Materials 

Litigation and Enforcement at the same 

address, to the Regional Administrator, 

NRC Region II, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, GA, 30303, and to Mr. James 

Francis Mattocks if the answer or 

hearing request is by a person other than 

Mr. James Francis Mattocks. Because of 

continuing disruptions in delivery of 

mail to United States Government 

offices, it is requested that answers and 

requests for hearing be transmitted to 

the Secretary of the Commission either 

by means of facsimile transmission to 

301–415–1101 or by e-mail to 

hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the 

Office of the General Counsel either by 

means of facsimile transmission to 301–

415–3725 or by e-mail to OGCMail 

Center@nrc.gov. If a person other than 

the licensee requests a hearing, that 

person shall set forth with particularity 

the manner in which his interest is 

adversely affected by this Order and 

shall address the criteria set forth in 10 

CFR 2.390(d). 

If a hearing is requested by Mr. James 

Francis Mattocks or a person whose 

interest is adversely affected, the 

Commission will issue an Order 

designating the time and place of any 

hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to 

be considered at such hearing shall be 

whether this Order should be sustained. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Mr. 

James Francis Mattocks, may, in 

addition to demanding a hearing, at the 

time the answer is filed or sooner, move 

the presiding officer to set aside the 

immediate effectiveness of the Order on 

the ground that the Order, including the 

need for immediate effectiveness, is not 

based on adequate evidence but on mere 

suspicion, unfounded allegations, or 

error. 

In the absence of any request for 

hearing, or written approval of an 

extension of time in which to request a 

hearing, the provisions specified in 

Section IV above shall be effective 

immediately and final 20 days from the 

date of this Order without further order 

or proceedings. If an extension of time 

for requesting a hearing has been 

approved, the provisions specified in 

Section IV shall be final when the 

extension expires if a hearing request 

has not been received. 

Dated this 21st day of March 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Martin J. Virgilio, 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, 

Waste, Research, State, Tribal, and 

Compliance Programs, Office of the Executive 

Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. E7–5640 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–445 and 50–446] 

TXU Generation Company LP; 

Comanche Peak Steam Electric 

Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of 

Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Renewed Facility 

Operating License, Proposed No 

Significant Hazards Consideration 

Determination, and Opportunity for a 

Hearing 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) is 

considering issuance of amendments to 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–87 

and NPF–89, issued to TXU Generating 

Company LP (the licensee), for 

operation of the Comanche Peak Steam 

Electric Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

respectively, located in Somervell 

County, Texas. 

The proposed amendment would 

revise Technical Specification (TS) 

3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—Operating.’’

Specifically, the proposed change 

would revise the Completion Time for 

TS 3.8.1, Condition F, Required Action 

F.1, from 12 hours to 24 hours. 

The existing TS 3.8.1, Condition F, 

requires that an inoperable safety 

injection (SI) sequencer must be 

restored to OPERABLE status within 12 

hours. If this Completion Time is not 

met, Condition G becomes applicable 

and the plant must be shut down to at 

least MODE 3 within the following 6 

hours. The proposed change to the 

Completion Time for TS 3.8.1, 

Condition F, Required Action F.1, 

would provide more time to complete 

necessary repairs and required postwork testing to restore an inoperable SI 

sequencer to OPERABLE status prior to 

commencing a plant shutdown to 

MODE 3. 

Before issuance of the proposed 

license amendment, the Commission 

will have made findings required by the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s 

regulations. 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. Under 

the Commission’s regulations in Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR), Section 50.92, this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated; or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
14624 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Notices 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration, which is 

presented below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the Completion 

Time for TS 3.3.2 [‘‘ESFAS (Engineered 

Safety Feature Actuation System) 

Instrumentation’’], Condition F, does not 

change the overall protection system 

performance which will remain within the 

bounds of the previously performed accident 

analyses since no hardware changes are 

proposed. The same reactor trip system (RTS) 

and engineered safety feature actuation 

system (ESFAS) instrumentation will 

continue to be used. The protection systems 

will continue to function in a manner 

consistent with the plant design basis. This 

change to the Technical Specifications does 

not result in a condition where the design, 

material, and construction standards that 

were applicable prior to the change are 

altered. 

The proposed change will not modify any 

system interface. The proposed change will 

not affect the probability of any event 

initiators. There will be no degradation in the 

performance of or an increase in the number 

of challenges imposed on safety-related 

equipment assumed to function during an 

accident situation. There will be no change 

to normal plant operating parameters or 

accident mitigation performance. The 

proposed change will not alter any 

assumptions or change any mitigation actions 

in the radiological consequence evaluations 

in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]. 

The proposed change to the Completion 

Time does not increase the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated. The proposed 

change does not change the response of the 

plant to any accidents and has no impact on 

the reliability of the RTS and ESFAS signals. 

The RTS and ESFAS will remain highly 

reliable and the proposed change does not 

result in an increase in the risk of plant 

operation. 

The proposed change does not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors nor 

alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 

configuration of the facility or the manner in 

which the plant is operated and maintained. 

The proposed change does not alter or 

prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs) from performing their 

intended function to mitigate the 

consequences of an initiating event within 

the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed 

change does not affect the source term, 

containment isolation, or radiological release 

assumptions used in evaluating the 

radiological consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. The proposed change 

is consistent with safety analysis 

assumptions and resultant consequences. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 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 change involves no 

hardware changes nor are there any changes 

in the method by which any safety-related 

plant system performs its safety function. 

The proposed change will not affect the 

normal method of plant operation. No 

performance requirements will be affected or 

eliminated. The proposed change will not 

result in physical alteration to any plant 

system nor will there be any change in the 

method by which any safety-related plant 

system performs its safety function. 

There will be no setpoint changes or 

changes to accident analysis assumptions. 

No new accident scenarios, transient 

precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting 

single failures are introduced as a result of 

this change. There will be no adverse effect 

or challenges imposed on any safety-related 

system as a result of these changes. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not affect the 

acceptance criteria for any analyzed event 

nor is there a change to any Safety Analysis 

Limit (SAL). There will be no effect on the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings, or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined nor will there be 

any effect on those plant systems necessary 

to assure the accomplishment of protection 

functions. There will be no impact on the 

overpower limit, DNBR [departure from 

nucleate boiling ratio] limits, FQ [Heat Flux 

Channel Factor], FDH [Enthalpy Rise hot 

Channel], LOCA [loss of coolant accident], 

PCT [Peak Cladding temperature], peak local 

power density, or any other margin of safety. 

The radiological dose consequence 

acceptance criteria listed in the Standard 

Review Plan will continue to be met. 

Redundant RTS and ESFAS trains are 

maintained and diversity with regard to the 

signals that provide reactor trip and 

engineered safety features actuation is also 

maintained. All signals credited as primary 

or secondary, and all operator actions 

credited in the accident analyses will remain 

the same. The proposed changes will not 

result in plant operation in a configuration 

outside the design basis. 

Implementation of the proposed changes is 

expected to result in an overall improvement 

in safety since longer repair times associated 

with increased Completion Times will lead 

to higher quality repairs and improved 

reliability. The increased Completion Time 

for an inoperable Safety Injection Sequencer 

will provide additional time to complete test 

and maintenance activities while at power, 

potentially reducing the number of forced 

outages related to compliance with TS 3.3.2, 

Condition G, which requires plant shutdown 

to Mode 3 within 6 hours. 

Therefore the proposed change does not 

involve a reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example, 

in derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, 

Directives and Editing Branch, Division 

of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and should cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 

Register notice. Written comments may 

also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two 

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, Public File Area 

O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

The filing of requests for hearing and 

petitions for leave to intervene is 

discussed below. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, the licensee 

may file a request for a hearing with 

respect to issuance of the amendment to 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Notices 14625 

the subject facility operating license and 

any person whose interest may be 

affected by this proceeding and who 

wishes to participate as a party in the 

proceeding must file a written request 

for a hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 

petition for leave to intervene shall be 

filed in accordance with the 

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for 

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 

CFR part 2. Interested persons should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area O1F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a 

request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene is filed by the above 

date, the Commission or a presiding 

officer designated by the Commission or 

by the Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestors/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions which the petitioner/ 

requestor seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the petitioner/requestor shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner/requestor must 

also provide references to those specific 

sources and documents of which the 

petitioner is aware and on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to establish 

those facts or expert opinion. The 

petition must include sufficient 

information to show that a genuine 

dispute exists with the applicant on a 

material issue of law or fact. 

Contentions shall be limited to matters 

within the scope of the amendment 

under consideration. The contention 

must be one which, if proven, would 

entitle the petitioner to relief. A 

petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy 

these requirements with respect to at 

least one contention will not be 

permitted to participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. 

If a hearing is requested, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

Nontimely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission or the presiding officer of 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

that the petition, request and/or the 

contentions should be granted based on 

a balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 

A request for a hearing or a petition 

for leave to intervene must be filed by: 

(1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express 

mail, and expedited delivery services: 

Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, 

Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail 

addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) 

facsimile transmission addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC, Attention: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101, 

verification number is (301) 415–1966. 

A copy of the request for hearing and 

petition for leave to intervene should 

also be sent to the Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and it is requested that copies be 

transmitted either by means of facsimile 

transmission to 301–415–3725 or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy 

of the request for hearing and petition 

for leave to intervene should also be 

sent to George L. Edgar, Esq., Morgan, 

Lewis and Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20036, the attorney for 

the licensee. 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendment dated March 22, 2006, as 

supplemented by letter dated September 

12, 2006, which is available for public 

inspection at the Commission’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, File 

Public Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the ADAMS Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site, http:// 

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

Persons who do not have access to 

ADAMS or who encounter problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR 

Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–

397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail 

to pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day 

of March 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Mohan C. Thadani, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E7–5642 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Nuclear 

Waste; Notice of Meeting 

The Advisory Committee on Nuclear 

Waste (ACNW) will hold its 178th 

meeting on April 10–12, 2007, Room T–

2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES