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 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 http:// 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, http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the 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, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 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, http://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing 
or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the 
Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by 
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or 
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the 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, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR 
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-
mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 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