Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Notices 26173 

DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on 

requests for reasonable accommodation 

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

* * * * * 

This notice is distributed by mail to 

several hundred subscribers; if you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969). 

In addition, distribution of this meeting 

notice over the Internet system is 

available. If you are interested in 

receiving this Commission meeting 

schedule electronically, please send an 

electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. 

Dated: May 3, 2007. 

R. Michelle Schroll, 

Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07–2288 Filed 5–4–07; 1:48 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses Involving No Significant 

Hazards Considerations 

I. Background 

Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission or NRC 

staff) is publishing this regular biweekly 

notice. The Act requires the 

Commission publish notice of any 

amendments issued, or proposed to be 

issued and grants the Commission the 

authority to issue and make 

immediately effective any amendment 

to an operating license upon a 

determination by the Commission that 

such amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, notwithstanding 

the pendency before the Commission of 

a request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued from April 13, 

2007 to April 26, 2007. The last 

biweekly notice was published on April 

24, 2007 (72 FR 20375). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

10 CFR 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) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

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. 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 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. 

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 6D22, Two 

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 

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

Copies of written comments received 

may be examined at the Commission’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 a 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 

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 01F21, 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 within 60 

days, 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 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
26174 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Notices 

petition must also set forth 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/requestor 

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/requestor 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/ 

requestor 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, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, 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. 

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 the attorney for the licensee. 

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(a)(1)(i)–(viii). 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendment which is available for 

public inspection at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area 01F21, 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. If 

you do not have access to ADAMS or if 

there are problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, contact 

the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–

4209, (301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., 

Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster 

Creek), Ocean County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: 

November 27, 2006. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

Oyster Creek Technical Specification 

(TS) 6.9.1.d, ‘‘Annual Radioactive 

Effluent Release Report,’’ by changing 

the requirement to submit the report 

within 60 days of January 1. 

Specifically, the revised requirement 

would be to submit the report prior to 

May 1 of each year. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

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 amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change involves a revision to 

the required submittal date for the 

Radioactive Effluent Release Report, and is 

administrative in nature. The change will not 

alter the physical design or operation of any 

plant structure, system, or component. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change is administrative in 

nature. The proposed change has no impact 

on the design, function or operation of any 

plant structure, system or component and 

does not affect any accident analyses. 

Accordingly, the change does not introduce 

any new accident initiators, nor does it 

reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of 

any plant structure, system, or component to 

perform their safety function. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change is administrative in 

nature, does not negate any existing 

requirement, and does not adversely affect 

existing plant safety margins or the reliability 

of the equipment assumed to operate in the 

safety analysis. As such, there is no change 

being made to safety analysis assumptions, 

safety limits or safety system settings that 

would adversely affect plant safety. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant 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. 

Attorney for licensee: Thomas S. 

O’Neill, Associate General Counsel, 

Exelon Generation Company, LCC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. 

Chernoff. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Notices 26175 

Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy 

Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458, 

River Bend Station, Unit 1, West 

Feliciana Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: March 

28, 2007. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would revise the 

required wattage specified in the River 

Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), Technical 

Specification 5.5.7.e, Ventilation Filter 

Testing Program, for the Control Room 

Fresh Air System (CRFAS) heater for 

testing. The proposed required wattage 

for testing the CRFAS heater would be 

revised from 23 ± 2.3 kilowatt (kW), to 

‘‘≥≥15 kW.’’

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

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. 

This change specifies the required power 

(in kW) for the Control Room ventilation 

electric heaters to decrease relative humidity 

of the air to less than 70% relative humidity 

as required for proper operation of the 

charcoal absorber components based on 

calculated requirements. The heater will 

continue to perform its intended design 

function as designed. The heater is not an 

accident precursor. 

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 heater will continue to perform its 

function as designed. The heater provides 

humidity control for the Control Room filter 

unit during a design basis accident. Changing 

the test acceptance criteria to a calculated 

value has no influence on, nor does it 

contribute in any way to, the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident or 

malfunction from those previously analyzed. 

No change has been made to the design, 

function or method of performing testing. No 

safety-related equipment or safety functions 

are altered as a result of this change. 

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. 

No margin of safety is changed as a result 

of this change. The heater will continue to 

perform its design function. Testing 

methodology has not changed. The function 

of the heater is unchanged. The acceptance 

criterion has been changed to a calculated 

value rather than the name plate rating to 

make testing more realistic. The heater will 

continue to operate to perform its intended 

design function. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant 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. 

Attorney for licensee: Terence A. 

Burke, Associate General Council—

Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 

Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 

39213. 

NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–

368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: March 

30, 2007. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO–2) 

Technical Specification (TS) to support 

a partial re-rack of the storage racks in 

the ANO–2 spent fuel pool (SFP). The 

proposed amendment would revise TS 

3.9.12, ‘‘Fuel Storage,’’ and its 

associated tables, figures, and 

surveillance requirements, TS 5.3, ‘‘Fuel 

Storage,’’ and add TS 6.5.17, ‘‘Metamic 

Coupon Sampling Program.’’ The ANO–

2 TS 3.9.12 would be changed to: (1) 

Support higher fuel assembly U–235 

enrichment; (2) apply the appropriate 

loading restrictions; and (3) delete the 

dry cask loading restrictions. ANO–2 TS 

5.3.1b would be changed to reflect a 

different SFP boron concentration that 

is needed to assure K-effective (Keff) 

remains less than or equal to 0.95. 

ANO–2 TS 5.3.2a would be modified to 

reflect a higher fuel assembly U–235 

enrichment. A new coupon sampling 

program would be added as TS 6.5.17. 

In addition, TS Surveillance 

Requirement 4.9.12.d would be added to 

direct performance of the coupon 

sampling program. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

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. 

Fuel Handling Accidents 

The current licensing bases for the dose 

consequences associated with a fuel handling 

accident (FHA), which was performed 

considering a maximum U–235 enrichment 

of 5.0 wt% and a maximum burnup of 65 

megawatt-days/kilograms of uranium, does 

not exceed 25% of 10 CFR [Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations] 100 limits. The 

proposed change is bounded by the current 

analysis and therefore, there is no increase in 

the dose consequences associated with a[n] 

FHA. 

During rack removal and installation, safe 

load paths will be determined and written 

procedures followed to ensure that the racks 

are not carried over any fuel assemblies. With 

the proposed limitations on rack and cask 

movement, there should be no impact to 

spent fuel and no radiological consequences 

due to fuel rack installation. The racks will 

be moved with a single failure proof crane. 

Therefore, a postulated drop of a rack is not 

a credible accident. 

The probability of having a[n] FHA has not 

increased. 

Criticality Accidents Associated With a 

Dropped Fuel Assembly 

The three fuel assembly drop accidents 

described below can be postulated to 

increase reactivity. However, for these 

accident conditions, the double contingency 

principle of ANS [American National 

Standard] N16.1–1975 is applied. This states 

that it is unnecessary to assume two unlikely, 

independent, concurrent events to ensure 

protection against a criticality accident. 

Thus, for accident conditions, the presence of 

soluble boron in the storage pool water can 

be assumed as a realistic initial condition 

since its absence would be a second unlikely 

event. 

Three types of drop accidents have been 

considered: a vertical drop accident, a 

horizontal drop accident, and an inadvertent 

drop of an assembly between the outside 

periphery of the rack and the pool wall. The 

structural damage to the pool liner, the racks, 

and fuel assembly resulting from a dropped 

fuel assembly striking the rack, the pool 

floor, or another assembly located in the 

racks is primarily dependent on the mass of 

the falling object, drop height, and structural 

configuration of the rack. The two parameters 

related to the fuel assembly (mass and drop 

height) are not changed by the proposed rack 

modification. The new rack design was 

evaluated for all postulated structural drops 

and the structural damage to these items 

remains within acceptable limits. In all cases 

the proposed TS limit for boron 

concentration ensures that a five percent 

subcriticality margin is met for the postulated 

accidents. 

Criticality Accidents Associated With a 

Misplaced Fuel Assembly 

The fuel assembly misplacement accident 

was considered for all storage configurations. 

An assembly with high reactivity is assumed 

to be placed in a storage location which 

requires restricted storage based on initial U–

235 loading, cooling time, and burnup. The 

presence of boron in the pool water assumed 

in the analysis has been shown to offset the 

worst case reactivity effect of a misplaced 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
26176 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Notices 

fuel assembly for any configuration. This 

boron requirement is less than the boron 

concentration required by the ANO–2 TS. 

Thus, a five percent subcriticality margin is 

met for postulated accidents, since any 

reactivity increase will be much less than the 

negative worth of the dissolved boron. 

Optimum Moderation Accident 

For fuel storage applications in the SFP, 

water is usually present. An ‘‘optimum 

moderation’’ accident is not a concern in SFP 

storage racks because the rack design 

prevents the preferential reduction of water 

density between the cells of a rack (e.g., 

boiling between cells). In addition, the 

criticality analysis has demonstrated that the 

effective neutron multiplication factor (Keff) 

will remain less than 1.0 when the SFP is 

fully flooded with unborated water. 

An ‘‘optimum moderation’’ accident in the 

new fuel vault was evaluated and the 

conclusions of that evaluation confirmed that 

the reactivity effect is less than the regulatory 

limit of 0.98 for Keff. 

Loss of SFP Cooling 

The proposed modification to the ANO–2 

SFP racks does not result in a change to the 

SFP cooling system and therefore the 

probability of a loss of SFP cooling is not 

increased. 

The consequences of a loss of spent fuel 

pool cooling were evaluated and found to not 

involve a significant increase as a result of 

the proposed changes. A thermal-hydraulic 

evaluation for the loss of SFP cooling was 

performed. The analysis determined that the 

minimum time to boil is about two hours 

following a complete core off load and a 

complete loss of forced cooling. This 

provides sufficient time for the operators to 

restore cooling or establish an alternate 

means of cooling before the water shielding 

above the top of the racks falls below 10 feet. 

Therefore, the proposed change represents no 

increase in the consequences of loss of pool 

cooling. 

Seismic Event 

The proposed rack modification does not 

result in an increase in the probability or 

consequences of a design basis seismic event. 

The new racks were analyzed and all 

structural acceptance criteria are shown to be 

met during seismic events. The structural 

capability of the SFP and liner will not be 

exceeded as a result of the new rack design. 

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 presence of soluble boron in the pool 

water assumed in the criticality analysis is 

less than the boron concentration required by 

the ANO–2 TSs. Thus, a five percent 

subcriticality margin is met for postulated 

accidents, since any reactivity increase will 

be much less than the negative worth of the 

dissolved boron. 

No new or different types of fuel assembly 

drop scenarios are created by the proposed 

change. During the installation of the new 

racks, the possibility of dropping a rack is not 

a credible accident since a single failure 

proof crane and safe load paths will be used 

for rack movements. No new or different fuel 

assembly misplacement accidents will be 

created. Administrative controls currently 

exist to assist in assuring fuel misplacement 

does not occur. 

No changes are proposed to the spent fuel 

pool cooling system or makeup systems and 

therefore no new accidents are considered 

related to the loss of cooling or makeup 

capability. 

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. 

With the presence of a nominal boron 

concentration, the SFP storage racks will be 

designed to assure a subcritical array with a 

five percent subcritical margin (95% 

probability at the 95 % confidence level). 

This has been verified by criticality analyses. 

Credit for soluble boron in the SFP water 

is permitted under accident conditions. The 

proposed modification that will allow 

installation of the new racks does not result 

in the potential of any new misplacement 

scenarios. Criticality analyses have been 

performed to determine the required boron 

concentration that would ensure the 

maximum Keff does not exceed 0.95. The 

ANO–2 TS for the minimum SFP boron 

concentration is greater than that required to 

ensure Keff remains below 0.95. Therefore, 

the margin of safety defined by taking credit 

for soluble boron will be maintained. 

The structural analysis of the new spent 

fuel racks along with the evaluation of the 

SFP structure indicated that the integrity of 

these structures will be maintained. The 

structural requirements were shown to be 

satisfied, thus the safety margins were 

maintained. 

In addition the proposed change includes 

a coupon sampling program that will monitor 

the physical properties of the MetamicTM

absorber material. The monitoring program 

provides a method of verifying that the 

assumptions used in the SFP criticality 

analyses remain valid. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant 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. 

Attorney for licensee: Terence A. 

Burke, Associate General Council—

Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 

Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 

39213. 

NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy 

Resources, Inc., South Mississippi 

Electric Power Association, and Entergy 

Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416, 

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 

Claiborne County, Mississippi 

Date of amendment request: March 1, 

2007. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would revise 

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 

Technical Specification (TS) Tables 

3.3.5.1–1 and 3.3.5.2–1 to modify the 

allowable values of the low Condensate 

Storage Tank (CST) level setpoints for 

the High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) 

and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling 

(RCIC) suction swap from the CST to the 

Suppression Pool. The change is 

necessary to correct an error in the 

original plant design. The error, under 

certain conditions, could prevent a 

swap of the HPCS and RCIC suction 

flow paths to the Suppression Pool. 

Currently, the erroneous setpoints have 

been corrected to a higher level, and are 

administratively controlled in 

accordance with the Administrative 

Letter 98–10, ‘‘Dispositioning of 

Technical Specifications That Are 

Insufficient To Assure Plant Safety.’’

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

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. 

This change will adjust the setpoint for an 

automatic swap of the suction for the HPCS 

and RClC systems from the Condensate 

Storage Tank (CST) to the Suppression Pool. 

The Suppression Pool is the source of water 

credited in the accident analyses. This 

transfer is not the initiator of any analyzed 

accident. The setpoint adjustment will allow 

a transfer of the suction to an assured safetyrelated water source earlier in the event and 

will have no effect on the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

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. 

Transfer of the suction source for HPCS 

and RClC will occur sooner as a result of this 

change. No new operational conditions 

beyond those currently allowed are 

introduced. This change is consistent with 

the safety analyses assumptions and current 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Notices 26177 

plant operating practices. This simply 

corrects the setpoint consistent with the 

accident analyses and therefore cannot create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated 

accident. 

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 reduce 

safety, but rather allows the transfer from the 

CST to the Suppression Pool sooner. The 

Suppression Pool is the source of water 

credited in the accident analyses. This 

change is consistent with the safety analyses 

assumptions and current plant operating 

practices. No new operational conditions 

beyond those currently allowed are created 

by these changes. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant 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. 

Attorney for licensee: Terence A. 

Burke, Associate General Council—

Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 

Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 

39213. 

NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle 

County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle 

County, Illinois 

Date of amendment request: October 

18, 2006. 

Description of amendment request: A 

change is proposed to the technical 

specifications (TSs) of LaSalle County 

Station, Units 1 and 2 (LaSalle), 

consistent with TS Task Force Traveler 

No. 432 (TSTF–423), ‘‘Technical 

Specification End States, NEDC–32988- 

A,’’ to the standard TSs for boilingwater reactor plants, to allow for some 

systems entry into hot shutdown rather 

than cold shutdown, to repair 

equipment if risk is assessed and 

managed consistent with the program in 

place for complying with the 

requirements of Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 

50.65(a)(4). The proposed amendment 

would modify the TS to risk-informed 

requirements regarding selected 

required action end states provided in 

TSTF–423, Revision 0. 

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: 

Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change allows a change to 

certain required end states when the TS 

Completion Times for remaining in power 

operation will be exceeded. Most of the 

requested technical specification (TS) 

changes are to permit an end state of hot 

shutdown (Mode 3) rather than an end state 

of cold shutdown (Mode 4) contained in the 

current TS. The request was limited to: (1) 

Those end states where entry into the 

shutdown mode is for a short interval, (2) 

entry is initiated by inoperability of a single 

train of equipment or a restriction on a plant 

operational parameter, unless otherwise 

stated in the applicable technical 

specification, and (3) the primary purpose is 

to correct the initiating condition and return 

to power operation as soon as is practical. 

Risk insights from both the qualitative and 

quantitative risk assessments were used in 

specific TS assessments. Such assessments 

are documented in Section 6 of GE NEDC–

32988, Revision 2, ‘‘Technical Justification to 

Support Risk Informed Modification to 

Selected Required Action End States for BWR 

Plants.’’ They [risk assessments] provide an 

integrated discussion of deterministic and 

probabilistic issues, focusing on specific 

technical specifications, which are used to 

support the proposed TS end state and 

associated restrictions. The [NRC] staff finds 

that the risk insights support the conclusions 

of the specific TS assessments. Therefore, the 

probability of an accident previously 

evaluated is not significantly increased, if at 

all. The consequences of an accident after 

adopting proposed TSTF–423, are no 

different than the consequences of an 

accident prior to adopting TSTF–423. 

Therefore, the consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated are not significantly 

affected by this change. The addition of a 

requirement to assess and manage the risk 

introduced by this change will further 

minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this 

change does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Create The Possibility of a New or Different 

Kind of Accident From Any Previously 

Evaluated. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant (no new or 

different type of equipment will be installed). 

If risk is assessed and managed, allowing a 

change to certain required end states when 

the TS Completion Times for remaining in 

power operation are exceeded, i.e., entry into 

hot shutdown rather than cold shutdown to 

repair equipment, will not introduce new 

failure modes or effects and will not, in the 

absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an 

accident whose consequences exceed the 

consequences of accidents previously 

evaluated. The addition of a requirement to 

assess and manage the risk introduced by this 

change and the commitment by the licensee 

to adhere to the guidance in TSTF–IG–05–02, 

Implementation Guidance for TSTF–423, 

Revision 0, ‘‘Technical Specifications End 

States, NEDC–32988-A,’’ will further 

minimize possible concerns. Thus, this 

change does not create the possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident from an 

accident previously evaluated. 

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin 

of Safety. 

The proposed change allows, for some 

systems, entry into hot shutdown rather than 

cold shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is 

assessed and managed. The [Boiling Water 

Reactor Owners Group] BWROG’s risk 

assessment approach is comprehensive and 

follows [NRC] staff guidance as documented 

in [Regulatory Guides] RGs 1.174 and 1.177. 

In addition, the analyses shows that the 

criteria of the three-tiered approach for 

allowing TS changes are met. The risk impact 

of the proposed TS changes was assessed 

following the three-tiered approach 

recommended in RG 1.177. A risk assessment 

was performed to justify the proposed TS 

changes. The net change to the margin of 

safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change 

does not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

LaSalle has reviewed the proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination published on March 23, 

2006, (71 FR 14743) as part of the 

consolidated line item improvement 

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 

requested amendments involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. 

Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs. 

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306, Prairie 

Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 

1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: February 

28, 2007. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise Technical Specification (TS) 

5.2.2, ‘‘Plant Staff’’, and TS 5.3, ‘‘Plant 

Staff Qualifications’’, requirements for 

shift technical advisor (STA) 

qualifications. The proposed changes 

will specify that personnel who perform 

the function of STA shall meet the 

qualification requirements of the 

Commission Policy Statement on 

Engineering Expertise on Shift, 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 28, 1985 (50 FR 43621). This 

change will allow qualified personnel to 

perform the function of STA without 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
26178 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Notices 

also holding a senior reactor operator 

(SRO) license. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

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. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This license amendment request proposes 

to add a new sentence to Technical 

Specification 5.2.2 specifying that personnel 

who perform the function of shift technical 

advisor shall meet the qualification 

requirements of the Commission Policy 

Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift 

and remove shift technical advisor 

qualification requirements from Technical 

Specification 5.3.1. This change will allow 

qualified personnel to perform the function 

of shift technical advisor without also 

holding a senior reactor operator license. 

The proposed changes are administrative 

changes to Technical Specifications Chapter 

5, the administrative chapter of the Technical 

Specifications. Shift technical advisors 

perform the function of on-shift technical 

advisor to the shift supervisor and do not 

operate the plant. Therefore, the changes 

proposed in this license amendment request 

do not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed changes create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This license amendment request proposes 

to add a new sentence to Technical 

Specification 5.2.2 specifying that personnel 

who perform the function of shift technical 

advisor shall meet the qualification 

requirements of the Commission Policy 

Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift 

and remove shift technical advisor 

qualification requirements from Technical 

Specification 5.3.1. This change will allow 

qualified personnel to perform the function 

of shift technical advisor without also 

holding a senior reactor operator license. 

The Technical Specification changes 

proposed in this license amendment are 

administrative, do not change the manner in 

which the plant is operated, and do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

This license amendment request proposes 

to add a new sentence to Technical 

Specification 5.2.2 specifying that personnel 

who perform the function of shift technical 

advisor shall meet the qualification 

requirements of the Commission Policy 

Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift 

and remove shift technical advisor 

qualification requirements from Technical 

Specification 5.3.1. This change will allow 

qualified personnel to perform the function 

of shift technical advisor without also 

holding a senior reactor operator license. 

The proposed changes are administrative 

changes to Technical Specifications Chapter 

5, the administrative chapter of the Technical 

Specifications. Shift technical advisors 

perform the function of on-shift technical 

advisor to the shift supervisor and do not 

operate the plant. Thus, the Technical 

Specification changes proposed in this 

license amendment request do not involve a 

significant 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 requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jonathan Rogoff, 

Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & 

Secretary, Nuclear Management 

Company, LLC, 700 First Street, 

Hudson, WI 54016. 

NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan. 

TXU Generation Company LP, Docket 

Nos. 50–445 and 50–446, Comanche 

Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 

2, Somervell County, Texas 

Date of amendment request: January 

18, 2007. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments requested would revise 

Technical Specifications (TS) 

requirement 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—

Operating,’’ Extension of Completion 

Times for Offsite Circuits. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

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. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed Technical Specification (TS) 

Completion Time (CT) extension does not 

significantly increase the probability of 

occurrence of a previously evaluated 

accident because the startup transformers 

(STs) are not initiators of previously 

evaluated accidents involving a loss of offsite 

power (LOOP). The proposed changes to the 

TS Required Actions CTs do not affect any 

of the assumptions used in the deterministic 

or the PSA [probabilistic safety assessment] 

analysis relative to LOOP initiating event 

frequency. Implementation of the proposed 

changes does not result in a risk significant 

impact. The onsite AC [alternating current] 

power sources will remain highly reliable 

and the proposed changes will not result in 

a significant increase in the risk of plant 

operation. This is demonstrated by showing 

that the impact on plant safety as measured 

by the increase in core damage frequency 

(CDF) is less than 1E–06 per year and the 

increase in large early release frequency 

(LERF) is less than 1E–07 per year. In 

addition, for the CT changes, the incremental 

conditional core damage probabilities 

(ICCDP) and incremental conditional large 

early release probabilities (ICLERP) are less 

than 5E–07 and 5E–08, respectively. These 

changes meet the acceptance criteria in 

Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. 

Therefore, since the onsite AC power sources 

will continue to perform their functions with 

high reliability as originally assumed and the 

increase in risk as measured by DCDF, 

DLERF, ICCDP, and ICLERP risk metrics is 

within the acceptance criteria of existing 

regulatory guidance, there will not be a 

significant increase in the consequences of 

any accidents. 

The proposed changes do 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 changes do 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 

changes do not affect the source term, 

containment isolation, or radiological release 

assumptions used in evaluating the 

radiological consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. The proposed changes 

are consistent with safety analysis 

assumptions and resultant consequences. 

The proposed TS CT extension will 

continue to provide assurance that the 

sources of power to 6.9 kV [kilovolts] AC 

buses perform their function when called 

upon. Extending the TS CT to 30 days does 

not affect the design of the STs, the 

operational characteristics of the STs, the 

interfaces between the STs and other plant 

systems, the function, or the reliability of the 

STs. Thus, the STs will be capable of 

performing their accident mitigation 

functions and there is no impact to the 

radiological consequences of any accident 

analysis. 

The Configuration Risk Management 

Program (CRMP) in TS 5.5.18 is an 

administrative program that assesses risk 

based on plant status. The risk-informed CT 

will be implemented consistent with the 

CRMP and approved plant procedures. When 

utilizing the 30-day extension, requirements 

of the CRMP per TS 5.5.18 call for the 

consideration of other measures to mitigate 

the consequences of an accident occurring 

while a[n] ST is inoperable. Furthermore, 

administrative controls will be applied when 

exercising the 30-day CT extension and are 

adequate to maintain defense-in-depth and 

sufficient safety margins. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed changes create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Notices 26179 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not result in a 

change in the manner in which the electrical 

distribution subsystems provide plant 

protection. There [are] no design changes 

associated with the proposed changes. The 

changes to the CT do not change any existing 

accident scenarios, nor create any new or 

different accident scenarios. 

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 any 

of the assumptions made in the safety 

analysis. The changes to the CT do not affect 

the accident analysis directly; the CT is 

strictly tied to the PRA [probabilistic risk 

assessment] and the risk associated with the 

occurrence of a low-probability event during 

the limited time the component is 

unavailable. 

3. Do the proposed changes 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. Neither the safety 

analyses nor the safety analysis acceptance 

criteria are impacted by these changes. The 

proposed changes will not result in plant 

operation in a configuration outside the 

current design basis. The proposed activities 

only involve changes to certain TS CTs. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

change to the plant design or operation and 

thus does not affect the design of the STs, the 

operation characteristics of the STs, the 

interfaces between the STs and other plant 

systems, or the function or reliability of the 

STs. Because the STs’ performance and 

reliability will continue to be ensured by the 

proposed TS change, the proposed changes 

do not result in a reduction in the margin of 

safety. 

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. 

Attorney for licensee: George L. Edgar, 

Esq., Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, 1800 

M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. 

NRC Branch Chief: David Terao. 

TXU Generation Company LP, Docket 

Nos. 50–445 and 50–446, Comanche 

Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 

2, Somervell County, Texas 

Date of amendment request: 

December 19, 2006. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments requested would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) 

requirement 5.5.16, ‘‘Containment 

Leakage Rate Testing Program,’’ for 

consistency with the requirements of 

paragraph 50.55a(g)(4) of Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

for components classified as Code Class 

CC. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

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. Do[es] the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the TS 

administrative controls programs for 

consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 

[Part] 50, paragraph 55a(g)(4) for components 

classified as Code Class CC. 

The proposed change affects the frequency 

of visual examinations that will be performed 

for the concrete surfaces of the containment 

for the purpose of the Containment Leakage 

Rate Testing Program. In addition, the 

proposed change allows those examinations 

to be performed during power operation as 

opposed to during a refueling outage. The 

frequency of visual examinations of the 

concrete surfaces of the containment and the 

mode of operation during which those 

examinations are performed has no 

relationship to or adverse impact on the 

probability of any of the initiating events 

assumed in the accident analyses. The 

proposed change would allow visual 

examinations that are performed pursuant to 

NRC approved [American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers] (ASME) Section XI 

Code requirements (except where relief has 

been granted by the NRC) to meet the intent 

of visual examinations required by 

Regulatory Guide 1.163, without requiring 

additional visual examinations pursuant to 

the Regulatory Guide. The intent of early 

detection of deterioration will continue to be 

met by the more rigorous requirements of the 

Code required visual examinations. As such, 

the safety function of the containment as a 

fission product barrier is maintained. 

The proposed change does not impact any 

accident initiators or analyzed events or 

assumed mitigation of accident or transient 

events. It does not involve the addition or 

removal of any equipment, or any design 

changes to the facility. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Do[es] the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the TS 

administrative controls programs for 

consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 

[Part] 50, paragraph 55a(g)(4) for components 

classified as Code Class CC. 

The change affects the frequency of visual 

examinations that will be performed for the 

concrete surfaces containments. In addition, 

the proposed change allows those 

examinations to be performed during power 

operation as opposed to during a refueling 

outage. The proposed change does not 

involve a modification to the physical 

configuration of the plant (i.e., no new 

equipment will be installed) or change in the 

methods governing normal plant operation. 

The proposed change will not impose any 

new or different requirements or introduce a 

new accident initiator, accident precursor, or 

malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there 

is no change in the types or increases in the 

amounts of any effluent that may be released 

off-site and there is no increase in individual 

or cumulative occupational exposure. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Do[es] the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the Improved 

Standard Technical Specification 

Administrative Controls program 

requirements for consistency with the 

requirements of 10 CFR [Part] 50, paragraph 

55a(g)(4) for components classified as Code 

Class CC. 

The change affects the frequency of visual 

examinations that will be performed for the 

concrete surfaces containments. In addition, 

the proposed change allows those 

examinations to be performed during power 

operation as opposed to during a refueling 

outage. The safety function of the 

containment as a fission product barrier will 

be maintained. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant 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. 

Attorney for licensee: George L. Edgar, 

Esq., Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, 1800 

M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. 

NRC Branch Chief: Thomas Hiltz. 

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
26180 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Notices 

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for A Hearing in 

connection with these actions was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) The applications for 

amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) 

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items are available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

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

reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209, 

(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–219, Oyster Creek Nuclear 

Generating Station, Ocean County, New 

Jersey 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 28, 2005, as supplemented by 

letters dated November 2, 2005, January 

24, February 2, March 16, March 23, and 

March 28, 2007. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the Oyster Creek 

Licensing Basis in the area of 

radiological dose analyses for designbasis accidents using the alternative 

source terms depicted in Regulatory 

Guide 1.183, ‘‘Alternative Radiological 

Source Terms for Evaluating Design 

Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power 

Reactors.’’ Additionally, the amendment 

revises the Oyster Creek Technical 

Specifications (TSs) consistent with the 

amended design-basis. 

Date of Issuance: April 26, 2007. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

Issuance to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment No.: 262. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

16: The amendment revised the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24646). 

The supplemental letters provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff’s 

original proposed to significant hazards 

consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of this amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated April 26, 2007. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Carolina Power & Light Company, 

Docket No. 50–261, H. B. Robinson 

Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 

(HBRSEP2), Darlington County, South 

Carolina 

Date of application for amendment: 

June 1, 2006, as supplemented by letters 

dated November 20, 2006, and February 

22, 2007. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises Surveillance 

Requirement 3.5.2 in the HBRSEP2 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of issuance: April 4, 2007. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 213. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–23: Amendment revises the 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 19, 2006 (71 FR 

75992). The supplemental letters 

provided additional information that 

was within the scope of the original 

notice and did not change the initial 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated April 4, 2007. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 

50–341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 

Michigan 

Date of application for amendment: 

November 27, 2006. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 5.5.9 to relocate the 

specific American Society of Testing 

and Materials (ASTM) Standard from 

the Administrative Controls Section of 

TS to a licensee-controlled document. 

Also, the revision to TS 5.5.9 allows the 

performance of an alternate water and 

sediment content test to establish the 

acceptability of new fuel oil prior to 

addition to the storage tank has been 

added to the clear and bright test. 

Date of issuance: April 12, 2007. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 174. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–

43: Amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications and License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 3, 2007 (72 FR 149). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated April 12, 2007. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket No. 50–440, 

Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, 

Lake County, Ohio 

Date of application for amendment: 

October 13, 2006. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Facility Operating 

License No. NPF–58 by deleting License 

Condition 2.F, which specifies reporting 

of violations of Operating License 

Section 2.C, and eliminates Technical 

Specification 5.6.6, which contains a 

reporting condition similar to Operating 

License Section 2.C.(6). 

Date of issuance: April 19, 2007. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days. 

Amendment No.: 140. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–

58: This amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications and License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 21, 2006 (71 FR 

67394). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated April 19, 2007. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Plant, Van 

Buren County, Michigan 

Date of application for amendment: 

August 31, 2006, as supplemented on 

December 15, 2006, and March 1 and 

April 4, 2007. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment conforms the license to 

reflect the transfer of Renewed Facility 

Operating License No. DPR–20 to 

Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC, as 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Notices 26181 

owner, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 

Inc., as operator, as approved by Order 

of the Commission dated April 6, 2007, 

and as revised on April 10, 2007. 

Date of issuance: April 11, 2007. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 224. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

20: Amendment revised the Renewed 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 16, 2006 (71 FR 

66805). 

The December 15, 2006, and March 1 

and April 4, 2007, supplemental letters 

contained clarifying information and 

did not expand the scope of the original 

Federal Register notice. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated April 6, 2007, 

as revised on April 10, 2007. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Docket No. 50–133, Humboldt Bay 

Power Plant, Unit 3, Humboldt County, 

California 

Date of application for amendment: 

December 20, 2006. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises License Condition 

2.B.3(c) to allow the receipt, possession, 

and use of byproduct, source, or special 

nuclear material without restriction to 

amount or atomic number, for sample 

analysis or instrument calibration or 

associated with radioactive apparatus or 

components. 

Date of issuance: April 17, 2007. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 39. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–7: 

This amendment revises the license. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 13, 2007 (72 FR 

6788). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated April 17, 2007. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo 

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 

California 

Date of application for amendments: 

December 29, 2006. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.4.1, ‘‘Reactor 

Coolant System (RCS) Pressure, 

Temperature, and Flow Departure from 

Nucleate Boiling (DNB) Limits,’’ and TS 

5.6.5, ‘‘Core Operating Limits Report 

(COLR).’’ This amendment relocated the 

RCS DNB parameters for pressurizer 

pressure and RCS average temperature 

to the COLR. In addition, TS 5.6.5 was 

revised to add topical reports WCAP–

8567–P–A, ‘‘Improved Thermal Design 

Procedure,’’ and WCAP–11596–P–A, 

‘‘Qualification of the PHOENIX–P/ANC 

Nuclear Design System for Pressurized 

Water Reactor Cores.’’

Date of issuance: April 17, 2007. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—195; Unit 

2—196. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

80 and DPR–82: The amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 13, 2007 (72 FR 

6786). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated April 17, 2007. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272 

and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendments: 

May 1, 2006, as supplemented October 

9, 2006, and February 21, 2007. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments relocate the main 

steamline discharge radiation monitors 

(R46) from Technical Specification (TS) 

3/4.3.3.1, ‘‘Radiation Monitoring 

Instrumentation’’ to TS 3/4.3.3.7, 

‘‘Accident Monitoring Instrumentation.’’

In addition, the amendments modify TS 

definition 1.31, ‘‘Source Check.’’

Date of issuance: April 19, 2007. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 30 

days. 

Amendment Nos.: 280 and 263. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

70 and DPR–75: The amendments 

revised the TSs and the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 18, 2006 (71 FR 40753). 

The supplements dated October 9, 2006, 

and February 21, 2007, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 18, 2006 (71 FR 40753). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated April 19, 2007. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272 

and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendments: 

June 7, 2006. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments delete the Technical 

Specification (TS) requirements related 

to hydrogen recombiners and hydrogen 

analyzers. The changes support the 

implementation of a revision to Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

Section 50.44, ‘‘Combustible gas control 

for nuclear power reactors’’ that became 

effective on October 16, 2003. A notice 

of availability for this TS improvement 

using the consolidated line item 

improvement process was published in 

the Federal Register on September 25, 

2003 (68 FR 55416). 

Date of issuance: April 19, 2007. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment Nos.: 281 and 264. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

70 and DPR–75: The amendments 

revised the TSs and the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 29, 2006 (71 FR 

51231). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated April 19, 2007. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, 

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 

and 3, Limestone County, Alabama 

Date of application for amendments: 

December 21, 2006. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments revised Technical 

Specification (TS) Limiting Condition 

for Operation 3.10.1, and the associated 

Bases, to expand its scope to include 

provisions for temperature excursions 

greater than 212 °F as a consequence of 

inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, 

and as a consequence of scram time 

testing initiated in conjunction with 

inservice leak or hydrostatic testing, 

while considering operational 

conditions to be in Mode 4. 

Date of issuance: April 16, 2007. 

Effective date: Date of issuance, to be 

implemented within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 270, 299 & 258. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
26182 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Notices 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and DPR–68: 

Amendments revised the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 13, 2007 (72 FR 

6791). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated April 16, 2007. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 

Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf 

Creek Generating Station, Coffey 

County, Kansas 

Date of amendment request: 

December 15, 2006. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications to adopt NRC-approved 

Revision 4 to Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 

Specification Change Traveler TSTF–

372, ‘‘Addition of LCO [Limiting 

Condition for Operation] 3.0.8, 

Inoperability of Snubbers.’’ The 

amendment added (1) a new LCO 3.0.8 

addressing situations where one or more 

required snubbers are unable to perform 

their associated support function(s) and 

(2) a reference to LCO 3.0.8 in LCO 

3.0.1, which describes when LCOs shall 

be met. 

Date of issuance: April 17, 2007. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 173. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–

42: The amendment revised the 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 3, 2007 (72 FR 154). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated April 17, 2007. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses and Final 

Determination of No Significant 

Hazards Consideration and 

Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent 

Public Announcement or Emergency 

Circumstances) 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application for the 

amendment complies with the 

standards and requirements of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s rules 

and regulations. The Commission has 

made appropriate findings as required 

by the Act and the Commission’s rules 

and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, 

which are set forth in the license 

amendment. 

Because of exigent or emergency 

circumstances associated with the date 

the amendment was needed, there was 

not time for the Commission to publish, 

for public comment before issuance, its 

usual Notice of Consideration of 

Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No 

Significant Hazards Consideration 

Determination, and Opportunity for a 

Hearing. 

For exigent circumstances, the 

Commission has either issued a Federal 

Register notice providing opportunity 

for public comment or has used local 

media to provide notice to the public in 

the area surrounding a licensee’s facility 

of the licensee’s application and of the 

Commission’s proposed determination 

of no significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission has provided a 

reasonable opportunity for the public to 

comment, using its best efforts to make 

available to the public means of 

communication for the public to 

respond quickly, and in the case of 

telephone comments, the comments 

have been recorded or transcribed as 

appropriate and the licensee has been 

informed of the public comments. 

In circumstances where failure to act 

in a timely way would have resulted, for 

example, in derating or shutdown of a 

nuclear power plant or in prevention of 

either resumption of operation or of 

increase in power output up to the 

plant’s licensed power level, the 

Commission may not have had an 

opportunity to provide for public 

comment on its no significant hazards 

consideration determination. In such 

case, the license amendment has been 

issued without opportunity for 

comment. If there has been some time 

for public comment but less than 30 

days, the Commission may provide an 

opportunity for public comment. If 

comments have been requested, it is so 

stated. In either event, the State has 

been consulted by telephone whenever 

possible. 

Under its regulations, the Commission 

may issue and make an amendment 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the pendency before it of a request for 

a hearing from any person, in advance 

of the holding and completion of any 

required hearing, where it has 

determined that no significant hazards 

consideration is involved. 

The Commission has applied the 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made 

a final determination that the 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration. The basis for this 

determination is contained in the 

documents related to this action. 

Accordingly, the amendments have 

been issued and made effective as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) The application for 

amendment, (2) the amendment to 

Facility Operating License, and (3) the 

Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment, as indicated. All of these 

items are available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

North, Public File Area 01F21, 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/adams.html. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

Reference staff at 

1 (800) 397–4209, (301) 415–4737 or by 

e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

The Commission is also offering an 

opportunity for a hearing with respect to 

the issuance of the amendment. 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 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 01F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 

and electronically on the Internet at the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Notices 26183 

1To the extent that the applications contain 

attachments and supporting documents that are not 

publicly available because they are asserted to 

contain safeguards or proprietary information, 

petitioners desiring access to this information 

should contact the applicant or applicant’s counsel 

and discuss the need for a protection order. 

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

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

are problems in accessing the document, 

contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 

(800) 397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by email to pdr@nrc.gov. 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 

requestor’s/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 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.1

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. 

Each contention shall be given a 

separate numeric or alpha designation 

within one of the following groups: 

1. Technical—primarily concerns/ 

issues relating to technical and/or 

health and safety matters discussed or 

referenced in the applications. 

2. Environmental—primarily 

concerns/issues relating to matters 

discussed or referenced in the 

environmental analysis for the 

applications. 

3. Miscellaneous—does not fall into 

one of the categories outlined above. 

As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two 

or more petitioners/requestors seek to 

co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/ 

requestors shall jointly designate a 

representative who shall have the 

authority to act for the petitioners/ 

requestors with respect to that 

contention. If a petitioner/requestor 

seeks to adopt the contention of another 

sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the 

petitioner/requestor who seeks to adopt 

the contention must either agree that the 

sponsoring petitioner/requestor shall act 

as the representative with respect to that 

contention, or jointly designate with the 

sponsoring petitioner/requestor a 

representative who shall have the 

authority to act for the petitioners/ 

requestors with respect to that 

contention. 

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. Since the Commission has 

made a final determination that the 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, if a hearing is 

requested, it will not stay the 

effectiveness of the amendment. Any 

hearing held would take place while the 

amendment is in effect. 

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 the attorney for the licensee. 

Nontimely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission or the presiding officer or 

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(a)(1)(i)–(viii). 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50–296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, 

Unit 3, Limestone County, Alabama 

Date of application for amendment: 

April 6, 2007 (TS–460–T). 

Brief description of amendment: This 

amendment approves a one-time 

extension of the Completion Time for 

emergency diesel generator (EDG) ‘3D’

from 7 days to 14 days. The extension 

allows continued operation while 

repairs, post-maintenance testing, and 

surveillance testing of the subject EDG 

are completed. 

Date of issuance: April 6, 2007. 

Effective date: April 6, 2007, to be 

implemented within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 257. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–68: Amendment revises the 

Technical Specifications. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment, finding of emergency 

circumstances, and final determination 

of no significant hazards consideration, 

are contained in a Safety Evaluation 

dated April 6, 2007. 

Public comments requested as to 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration: No. 

Attorney for licensee: General 

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, 

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
26184 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Notices 

NRC Section Chief: Thomas H. Boyce. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day 

of May 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Harold K. Chernoff, 

Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E7–8679 Filed 5–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

Proposed Submission of Information 

Collection for OMB Review; Comment 

Request; Reconsideration of Initial 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice of intention to request 

OMB approval. 

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (PBGC) intends to request 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approve, under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, a collection 

of information under its regulation on 

Rules for Administrative Review of 

Agency Decisions. This notice informs 

the public of PBGC’s intent and solicits 

public comment on the collection of 

information. 

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

by July 9, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web 

site instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: 

paperwork.comments@pbgc.gov. 

• Fax: 202–326–4224. 

• Mail or Hand Delivery: Legislative 

and Regulatory Department, Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005–

4026. Comments received will be posted 

to http:www.pbgc.gov. 

Copies of the collection of information 

may also be obtained without charge by 

writing to the Disclosure Division of the 

Office of the General Counsel of PBGC 

at the above address or by visiting the 

Disclosure Division or calling 202–326–

4040 during normal business hours. 

(TTY and TDD users may call the 

Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800–

877–8339 and ask to be connected to 

202–326–4040.) PBGC’s regulation on 

Administrative Appeals may be 

accessed on PBGC’s Web site at http:// 

www.pbgc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald McCabe, Attorney, or Catherine 

B. Klion, Manager, Regulatory and 

Policy Division, Legislative and 

Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026, 202–

326–4024. (For TTY and TDD, call 800–

877–8339 and request connection to 

202–326–4024). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PBGC’s 

regulation on Rules for Administrative 

Review of Agency Decisions (29 CFR 

part 4003) prescribes rules governing 

the issuance of initial determinations by 

the PBGC and the procedures for 

requesting and obtaining review of 

initial determinations through 

reconsideration or appeal. Subpart A of 

the regulation specifies which initial 

determinations are subject to 

reconsideration. Subpart C prescribes 

rules on who may request 

reconsideration, when to make such a 

request, where to submit it, form and 

content of reconsideration requests, and 

other matters relating to 

reconsiderations. 

Any person aggrieved by an initial 

determination of PBGC under 

§ 4003.1(b)(1) (determinations that a 

plan is covered by section 4021 of 

ERISA), § 4003.1(b)(2) (determinations 

concerning premiums, interest, and late 

payment penalties under section 4007 of 

ERISA), § 4003.1(b)(3) (determinations 

concerning voluntary terminations), or 

§ 4003.1(b)(4) (determinations 

concerning allocation of assets under 

section 4044 of ERISA) may request 

reconsideration of the initial 

determination. Requests for 

reconsideration must be in writing, be 

clearly designated as requests for 

reconsideration, contain a statement of 

the grounds for reconsideration and the 

relief sought, and contain or reference 

all pertinent information. 

PBGC intends to request that OMB 

approve this collection of information 

for three years. 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 OMB control number. 

PBGC estimates that an average of 940 

appellants per year will respond to this 

collection of information. PBGC further 

estimates that the average annual 

burden of this collection of information 

is 0.35 hours and $545 per person, with 

an average total annual burden of 329 

hours and $512,219. 

PBGC is soliciting public comments 

to—

• Evaluate whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or 

• Other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology, e.g., permitting electronic 

submission of responses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of 

May 2007. 

John H. Hanley, 

Director, Legislative and Regulatory 

Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E7–8708 Filed 5–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–01–P 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request for Review of a Revised 

Information Collection: SF 2823 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 

L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice 

announces that the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) will submit to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) a request for review of a revised 

information collection. SF 2823, 

Designation of Beneficiary: Federal 

Employees’ Group Life Insurance, is 

used by any Federal employee or retiree 

covered by the Federal Employees’

Group Life Insurance Program to 

instruct the Office of Federal 

Employees’ Group Life Insurance how 

to distribute the proceeds of his or her 

life insurance when the statutory order 

of precedence does not meet his or her 

needs. 

Comments are particularly invited on: 

Whether this collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of functions of the Office of Personnel 

Management, and whether it will have 

practical utility; whether our estimate of 

the public burden of this collection of 

information is accurate, and based on 

valid assumptions and methodology; 

and ways in which we can minimize the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES