PSEG Nuclear Llc, Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing, 3427-3429 [E7-1087]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 16 / Thursday, January 25, 2007 / Notices
at the www.ajbtransition.org Web site no
later than close of business February 26,
2007.
Each submittal from either a job board
or portal site organization must include
an attestation that the information
provided is true and accurate. This
attestation must be from an
organizational representative who has
the authority to represent the
organization. The attestation must
clearly identify the name, title, e-mail
address, and phone number of the
attester. Failure to include a complete
attestation statement will result in the
submittal not being considered for
inclusion.
At this time ETA anticipates listing all
organizations offering job banks/bulletin
boards or portal/gateway sites that meet
the standards set forth in this notice.
However, if the response to this notice
is greater that anticipated, ETA reserves
the right to limit the list to a manageable
size.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of
January, 2006.
Emily Stover DeRocco,
Assistant Secretary for Employment and
Training.
[FR Doc. E7–1106 Filed 1–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Dated: January 19, 2007.
Keith T. Sefton,
Deputy General Counsel, Administration and
Management
[FR Doc. E7–1055 Filed 1–24–07; 8:45 am]
[Notice (07–003)]
Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive
License
BILLING CODE 7510–13–P
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
ACTION: Notice of intent to grant
exclusive license.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice is issued in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and
37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby
gives notice of its intent to grant an
exclusive license in the United States to
practice the inventions described in
ARC–15205–1, entitled ‘‘Biochemical
Sensors Using Carbon Nanotube
Arrays’’, to Early Warning, Inc., having
its principal place of business in
Newark, Delaware. This license may be
field of use restricted. The patent rights
in this invention have been assigned to
the United States of America as
represented by the Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. The prospective
exclusive license will comply with the
terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209
and 37 CFR 404.7.
DATES: The prospective exclusive
license may be granted unless, within
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Jan 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
fifteen (15) days from the date of this
published notice, NASA receives
written objections including evidence
and argument that establish that the
grant of the license would not be
consistent with the requirements of 35
U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Competing applications completed and
received by NASA within fifteen (15)
days of the date of this published notice
will also be treated as objections to the
grant of the contemplated exclusive
license.
Objections submitted in response to
this notice will not be made available to
the public for inspection and, to the
extent permitted by law, will not be
released under the Freedom of
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
ADDRESSES: Objections relating to the
prospective license may be submitted to
Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel,
NASA Ames Research Center, Mail Stop
202A–4, Moffett Field, CA 94035–1000.
(650) 604–5104; Fax (650) 604–2767.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert M. Padilla, Chief Patent Counsel,
Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Ames
Research Center, Mail Stop 202A–4,
Moffett Field, CA 94035–1000. (650)
604–5104; Fax (650) 604–2767.
Information about other NASA
inventions available for licensing can be
found online at https://
techtracs.nasa.gov/.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–272]
PSEG Nuclear Llc, Exelon Generation
Company, LLC; Notice of
Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is considering issuance of an
amendment to Facility Operating
License No. DPR–70 issued to PSEG
Nuclear LLC (the licensee) for operation
of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station
(Salem), Unit No. 1, located in Salem
County, New Jersey.
The amendment request proposes a
one-time change to the Technical
Specifications (TSs) regarding the steam
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3427
generator (SG) tube inspection and
repair required for the portion of the SG
tubes passing through the tubesheet
region. Specifically, for Salem Unit No.
1 refueling outage 18 (planned for
spring 2007) and the subsequent
operating cycle, the proposed TS
changes would limit the required
inspection (and repair if degradation is
found) to the portions of the SG tubes
passing through the upper 17 inches of
the approximate 21-inch tubesheet
region.
Before issuance of the proposed
license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), and the Commission’s
regulations.
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission’s regulations in Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), Section 50.92, this means that
operation of the facility in accordance
with the proposed amendment would
not (1) involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; (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. 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 change involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated?
Of the accidents previously evaluated, the
proposed changes only affect the steam
generator tube rupture (SGTR) event
evaluation and the postulated steam line
break (SLB) accident evaluation. Loss-ofcoolant accident (LOCA) conditions cause a
compressive axial load to act on the tube.
Therefore, since the LOCA tends to force the
tube into the tubesheet rather than pull it out,
it is not a factor in this amendment request.
Another faulted load consideration is a safe
shutdown earthquake (SSE); however, the
seismic analysis of Model F steam generators
has shown that axial loading of the tubes is
negligible during an SSE.
At normal operating pressures, leakage
from primary water stress corrosion cracking
(PWSCC) below 17 inches from the top of the
tubesheet is limited by both the tube-totubesheet crevice and the limited crack
opening permitted by the tubesheet
constraint. Consequently, negligible normal
operating leakage is expected from cracks
within the tubesheet region.
For the SGTR event, the required structural
margins of the steam generator tubes will be
maintained by the presence of the tubesheet.
Tube rupture is precluded for cracks in the
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
3428
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 16 / Thursday, January 25, 2007 / Notices
hydraulic expansion region due to the
constraint provided by the tubesheet.
Therefore, the performance criteria of NEI
[Nuclear Energy Institute] 97–06, Rev. 2,
‘‘Steam Generator Program Guidelines’’ and
the Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ‘‘Bases for
Plugging Degraded PWR [pressurized-water
reactor] Steam Generator Tubes,’’ margins
against burst are maintained during normal
and postulated accident conditions. The
limited inspection length of 17 inches
supplies the necessary resistive force to
preclude pullout loads under both normal
operating and accident conditions. The
contact pressure results from the hydraulic
expansion process, thermal expansion
mismatch between the tube and tubesheet
and from the differential pressure between
the primary and secondary side. Therefore,
the proposed change does not result in a
significant increase in the probability or
consequence of a[n] SGTR.
The probability of a[n] SLB is unaffected
by the potential failure of a SG tube as the
failure of a tube is not an initiator for a[n]
SLB event. SLB leakage is limited by leakage
flow restrictions resulting from the crack and
tube-to-tubesheet contact pressures that
provide a restricted leakage path above the
indications and also limit the degree of crack
face opening compared to free span
indications. The leak rate during postulated
accident conditions would be expected to be
less than twice that during normal operation
for indications near the bottom of the
tubesheet (including indications in the tube
end welds) based on the observation that
while the driving pressure increases by about
a factor of two, the flow resistance increases
with an increase in the tube-to-tubesheet
contact pressure. While such a decrease is
rationally expected, the postulated accident
leak rate is bounded by twice the normal
operating leak rate if the increase in contact
pressure is ignored. Since normal operating
leakage is limited to 0.10 gpm [gallons per
minute] (150 gpd [gallons per day]), the
attendant accident condition leak rate,
assuming all leakage to be from indications
below 17 inches from the top of the tubesheet
would be bounded by 0.187 gpm. This value
is bounded by the 0.35 gpm leak rate
assumed in Section 15.4.2, ‘‘Major Secondary
System Pipe Rupture’’ of the Salem Unit 1
Updated FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR)].
Based on the above, the performance
criteria of NEI–97–06, Rev. 2 and draft RG
1.121 continue to be met and the proposed
change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not introduce
any changes or mechanisms that create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident. Tube bundle integrity is expected
to be maintained for all plant conditions
upon implementation of the limited
tubesheet inspection depth methodology.
The proposed changes do not introduce any
new equipment or any change to existing
equipment. No new effects on existing
equipment are created nor are any new
malfunctions introduced.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Jan 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
Therefore, based on the above evaluation,
the proposed changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change maintains the
required structural margins of the steam
generator tubes for both normal and accident
conditions. NEI 97–06, Rev. 2 and RG 1.121
are used as the basis in the development of
the limited tubesheet inspection depth
methodology for determining that steam
generator tube integrity considerations are
maintained within acceptable limits. RG
1.121 describes a method acceptable to the
NRC staff for meeting General Design Criteria
14, 15, 31, and 32 by reducing the probability
and consequences of an SGTR. RG 1.121
concludes that by determining the limiting
safe conditions of tube wall degradation
beyond which tubes with unacceptable
cracking, as established by inservice
inspection, should be removed from service
or repaired, the probability and consequences
of a[n] SGTR are reduced. This RG uses
safety factors on loads for tube burst that are
consistent with the requirements of Section
III of the ASME [American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure
Vessel] Code.
For axially oriented cracking located
within the tubesheet, tube burst is precluded
due to the presence of the tubesheet. For
circumferentially oriented cracking,
Reference 1 [Westinghouse Report WCAP–
16640–P, ‘‘Steam Generator Alternate Repair
Criteria for Tube Portion Within the
Tubesheet at Salem Unit 1,’’ August 2006]
defines a length of non-degraded expanded
tube in the tubesheet that provides the
necessary resistance to tube pullout due to
the pressure induced forces (with applicable
safety factors applied). Application of the
limited tubesheet inspection depth criteria
will not result in unacceptable primary-tosecondary leakage during all plant
conditions.
Plugging of the steam generator tubes
reduces the reactor coolant flow margin for
core cooling. Implementation of the 17[-]inch
inspection length at Salem Unit 1 will result
in maintaining the margin of flow that may
have otherwise been reduced by tube
plugging.
Based on the above, it is concluded that the
proposed changes do not result in any
reduction of margin with respect to plant
safety as defined in the [UFSAR] or bases of
the plant Technical Specifications.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example,
in derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted
by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing Branch, Division
of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, and should cite the publication
date and page number of this Federal
Register notice. Written comments may
also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30
a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and
petitions for leave to intervene is
discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, the licensee
may file a request for a hearing with
respect to issuance of the amendment to
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,
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 16 / Thursday, January 25, 2007 / Notices
which is available at the Commission’s
PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area O1F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly-available records
will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a
request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene is filed by the above
date, the Commission or a presiding
officer designated by the Commission or
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
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/requestor must
also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the
petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner intends to rely to establish
those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient
information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a
material issue of law or fact.
Contentions shall be limited to matters
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Jan 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
within the scope of the amendment
under consideration. The contention
must be one which, if proven, would
entitle the petitioner to relief. A
petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy
these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, any hearing held would
take place before the issuance of any
amendment.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions
and contentions will not be entertained
absent a determination by the
Commission or the presiding officer of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
that the petition, request and/or the
contentions should be granted based on
a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition
for leave to intervene must be filed by:
(1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express
mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4)
facsimile transmission addressed to the
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101,
verification number is (301) 415–1966.
A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should
also be sent to the Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3429
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 Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire,
Nuclear Business Unit—N21, P.O. Box
236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038,
attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this
action, see the application for
amendment dated January 18, 2007,
which is available for public inspection
at the Commission’s PDR, located at
One White Flint North, File Public Area
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publiclyavailable records will be accessible from
the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading
Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone
at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day
of January, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard B. Ennis,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch I–2, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7–1087 Filed 1–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
NRC Enforcement Policy; Proposed
Plan for Major Revision
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed revision;
solicitation of written comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is examining its
Enforcement Policy (Enforcement Policy
or Policy) and plans a major revision to
clarify use of enforcement terminology
and address enforcement issues in areas
currently not covered in the Policy,
including, for example, the agency’s use
of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
in enforcement cases. The NRC requests
comments on (1) what specific topics, if
any, should be added or removed from
the Policy; and (2) what topics currently
addressed in the Policy, if any, require
additional guidance. The NRC is
soliciting written comments from
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 16 (Thursday, January 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3427-3429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1087]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-272]
PSEG Nuclear Llc, Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License,
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and
Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-70 issued to PSEG Nuclear LLC (the licensee) for operation of the
Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit No. 1, located in Salem
County, New Jersey.
The amendment request proposes a one-time change to the Technical
Specifications (TSs) regarding the steam generator (SG) tube inspection
and repair required for the portion of the SG tubes passing through the
tubesheet region. Specifically, for Salem Unit No. 1 refueling outage
18 (planned for spring 2007) and the subsequent operating cycle, the
proposed TS changes would limit the required inspection (and repair if
degradation is found) to the portions of the SG tubes passing through
the upper 17 inches of the approximate 21-inch tubesheet region.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the
Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated; (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. 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 change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Of the accidents previously evaluated, the proposed changes only
affect the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event evaluation and
the postulated steam line break (SLB) accident evaluation. Loss-of-
coolant accident (LOCA) conditions cause a compressive axial load to
act on the tube. Therefore, since the LOCA tends to force the tube
into the tubesheet rather than pull it out, it is not a factor in
this amendment request. Another faulted load consideration is a safe
shutdown earthquake (SSE); however, the seismic analysis of Model F
steam generators has shown that axial loading of the tubes is
negligible during an SSE.
At normal operating pressures, leakage from primary water stress
corrosion cracking (PWSCC) below 17 inches from the top of the
tubesheet is limited by both the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the
limited crack opening permitted by the tubesheet constraint.
Consequently, negligible normal operating leakage is expected from
cracks within the tubesheet region.
For the SGTR event, the required structural margins of the steam
generator tubes will be maintained by the presence of the tubesheet.
Tube rupture is precluded for cracks in the
[[Page 3428]]
hydraulic expansion region due to the constraint provided by the
tubesheet. Therefore, the performance criteria of NEI [Nuclear
Energy Institute] 97-06, Rev. 2, ``Steam Generator Program
Guidelines'' and the Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ``Bases for
Plugging Degraded PWR [pressurized-water reactor] Steam Generator
Tubes,'' margins against burst are maintained during normal and
postulated accident conditions. The limited inspection length of 17
inches supplies the necessary resistive force to preclude pullout
loads under both normal operating and accident conditions. The
contact pressure results from the hydraulic expansion process,
thermal expansion mismatch between the tube and tubesheet and from
the differential pressure between the primary and secondary side.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant
increase in the probability or consequence of a[n] SGTR.
The probability of a[n] SLB is unaffected by the potential
failure of a SG tube as the failure of a tube is not an initiator
for a[n] SLB event. SLB leakage is limited by leakage flow
restrictions resulting from the crack and tube-to-tubesheet contact
pressures that provide a restricted leakage path above the
indications and also limit the degree of crack face opening compared
to free span indications. The leak rate during postulated accident
conditions would be expected to be less than twice that during
normal operation for indications near the bottom of the tubesheet
(including indications in the tube end welds) based on the
observation that while the driving pressure increases by about a
factor of two, the flow resistance increases with an increase in the
tube-to-tubesheet contact pressure. While such a decrease is
rationally expected, the postulated accident leak rate is bounded by
twice the normal operating leak rate if the increase in contact
pressure is ignored. Since normal operating leakage is limited to
0.10 gpm [gallons per minute] (150 gpd [gallons per day]), the
attendant accident condition leak rate, assuming all leakage to be
from indications below 17 inches from the top of the tubesheet would
be bounded by 0.187 gpm. This value is bounded by the 0.35 gpm leak
rate assumed in Section 15.4.2, ``Major Secondary System Pipe
Rupture'' of the Salem Unit 1 Updated FSAR [Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR)].
Based on the above, the performance criteria of NEI-97-06, Rev.
2 and draft RG 1.121 continue to be met and the proposed change does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not introduce any changes or mechanisms
that create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
Tube bundle integrity is expected to be maintained for all plant
conditions upon implementation of the limited tubesheet inspection
depth methodology. The proposed changes do not introduce any new
equipment or any change to existing equipment. No new effects on
existing equipment are created nor are any new malfunctions
introduced.
Therefore, based on the above evaluation, the proposed changes
do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
The proposed change maintains the required structural margins of
the steam generator tubes for both normal and accident conditions.
NEI 97-06, Rev. 2 and RG 1.121 are used as the basis in the
development of the limited tubesheet inspection depth methodology
for determining that steam generator tube integrity considerations
are maintained within acceptable limits. RG 1.121 describes a method
acceptable to the NRC staff for meeting General Design Criteria 14,
15, 31, and 32 by reducing the probability and consequences of an
SGTR. RG 1.121 concludes that by determining the limiting safe
conditions of tube wall degradation beyond which tubes with
unacceptable cracking, as established by inservice inspection,
should be removed from service or repaired, the probability and
consequences of a[n] SGTR are reduced. This RG uses safety factors
on loads for tube burst that are consistent with the requirements of
Section III of the ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Boiler and Pressure Vessel] Code.
For axially oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube
burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For
circumferentially oriented cracking, Reference 1 [Westinghouse
Report WCAP-16640-P, ``Steam Generator Alternate Repair Criteria for
Tube Portion Within the Tubesheet at Salem Unit 1,'' August 2006]
defines a length of non-degraded expanded tube in the tubesheet that
provides the necessary resistance to tube pullout due to the
pressure induced forces (with applicable safety factors applied).
Application of the limited tubesheet inspection depth criteria will
not result in unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage during all
plant conditions.
Plugging of the steam generator tubes reduces the reactor
coolant flow margin for core cooling. Implementation of the 17[-
]inch inspection length at Salem Unit 1 will result in maintaining
the margin of flow that may have otherwise been reduced by tube
plugging.
Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed changes do
not result in any reduction of margin with respect to plant safety
as defined in the [UFSAR] or bases of the plant Technical
Specifications.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services,
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to 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,
[[Page 3429]]
which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly-available records will be accessible from
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing
or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the
Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the 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/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion.
The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition,
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV;
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be sent to Jeffrie J. Keenan,
Esquire, Nuclear Business Unit--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ
08038, attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated January 18, 2007, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White
Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 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, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-
mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of January, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard B. Ennis,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-1087 Filed 1-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
