FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Firstenergy Nuclear Generation Corp.; Ohio Edison Company; The Toledo Edison Company; Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 6611-6612 [E7-2373]

Download as PDF sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 28 / Monday, February 12, 2007 / Notices the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner’s interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/ requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Feb 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101, verification number is (301) 415–1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301–415–3725 or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Travis C. McCullough, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated January 15, 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. PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 6611 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of February 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James Kim, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I– 1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7–2321 Filed 2–9–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–334 and 50–412] FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Firstenergy Nuclear Generation Corp.; Ohio Edison Company; The Toledo Edison Company; Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–66 and NPF–73, issued to the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee) for operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS–1 and 2), located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Sections 51.21 and 51.32, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would be a conversion from the current Technical Specifications (CTSs) to the Improved Technical Specifications (ITSs) format based on NUREG–1431, ‘‘Standard Technical Specifications— Westinghouse Plants,’’ Revision 2. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee’s application dated February 25, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated November 11, 2005, April 19, September 9, October 24, and December 7, 2006. The Need for the Proposed Action The Commission’s ‘‘Proposed Policy Statement on Technical Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors’’ (52 FR 3788), dated February 6, 1987, contained an Interim Policy Statement that set forth objective criteria for determining which regulatory requirements and operating restrictions should be included in the Technical Specifications (TSs) for nuclear power plants. When it issued the Interim Policy Statement, the Commission also E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM 12FEN1 6612 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 28 / Monday, February 12, 2007 / Notices sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES requested comments on it. Subsequently, to implement the Interim Policy Statement, each reactor vendor owners group and the NRC staff began developing standard TSs (STSs) for reactors supplied by each vendor. The Commission then published its ‘‘Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors’’ (58 FR 39132), dated July 22, 1993, in which it addressed comments received on the Interim Policy Statement, and incorporated experience in developing the STSs. The Final Policy Statement formed the basis for a revision to 10 CFR 50.36 (60 FR 36953), dated July 19, 1995, that codified the criteria for determining the content of TSs. The NRC Committee to Review Generic Requirements reviewed the STSs, made note of their safety merits, and indicated its support of conversion by operating plants to the STSs. For BVPS–1 and 2, NUREG–1431 documents the STSs and forms the basis for the BVPS–1 and 2 conversion to the ITSs. The proposed changes to the CTSs are based on NUREG–1431 and the guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement. The objective of this action is to rewrite, reformat, and streamline the CTSs (i.e., to convert the CTSs to the ITSs). Emphasis was placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and understanding. Some specifications in the CTSs would be relocated. Such relocated specifications would include those requirements which do not meet the 10 CFR 50.36 selection criteria. These requirements may be relocated to the TS Bases document, the BVPS–1 and 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, the Core Operating Limits Report, the operational quality assurance plan, plant procedures, or other licenseecontrolled documents. Relocating requirements to licensee-controlled documents does not eliminate them, but rather places them under more appropriate regulatory controls (i.e., 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3), and 10 CFR 50.59) to manage their implementation and future changes. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the conversion to ITSs would not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and would not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological effluents. The proposed action will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Feb 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 released off site. There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released off site. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites because no previously undisturbed area will be affected by the proposed amendment. The proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other effect on the environment. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and, thus, the proposed action will not have any significant impact to the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. Thus, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for BVPS–1 and 2 dated July 1973 and September 1985, respectively. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on January 23, 2007, the NRC staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Lawrence Ryan, of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee’s letter dated June 29, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated February 25, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated November 11, 2005, April 19, September 9, October 24, and December 7, 2006, and the information provided to the NRC staff through the joint NRC/ BVPS ITS Conversion web page. 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 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams/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 or 301– 415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of January 2007. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nadiyah S. Morgan, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I– 1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7–2373 Filed 2–9–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296] Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant; Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a final Environmental Assessment (EA) of its evaluation of a request by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for license amendments to increase the maximum thermal power at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) from 3458 megawattsthermal (MWt) to 3952 MWt for Units 2 and 3 and from 3293 MWt to 3952 MWt for Unit 1. These represent power increases of approximately 15 percent for BFN Units 2 and 3 and 20 percent for BFN Unit 1. As stated in the NRC staff’s position paper dated February 8, AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM 12FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 28 (Monday, February 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6611-6612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2373]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412]


FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Firstenergy Nuclear 
Generation Corp.; Ohio Edison Company; The Toledo Edison Company; 
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and 
NPF-73, issued to the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the 
licensee) for operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2), located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Pursuant 
to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Sections 51.21 
and 51.32, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding 
of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would be a conversion from the current 
Technical Specifications (CTSs) to the Improved Technical 
Specifications (ITSs) format based on NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications--Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 2. The proposed action 
is in accordance with the licensee's application dated February 25, 
2005, as supplemented by letters dated November 11, 2005, April 19, 
September 9, October 24, and December 7, 2006.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The Commission's ``Proposed Policy Statement on Technical 
Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (52 FR 3788), 
dated February 6, 1987, contained an Interim Policy Statement that set 
forth objective criteria for determining which regulatory requirements 
and operating restrictions should be included in the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) for nuclear power plants. When it issued the 
Interim Policy Statement, the Commission also

[[Page 6612]]

requested comments on it. Subsequently, to implement the Interim Policy 
Statement, each reactor vendor owners group and the NRC staff began 
developing standard TSs (STSs) for reactors supplied by each vendor. 
The Commission then published its ``Final Policy Statement on Technical 
Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (58 FR 39132), 
dated July 22, 1993, in which it addressed comments received on the 
Interim Policy Statement, and incorporated experience in developing the 
STSs. The Final Policy Statement formed the basis for a revision to 10 
CFR 50.36 (60 FR 36953), dated July 19, 1995, that codified the 
criteria for determining the content of TSs. The NRC Committee to 
Review Generic Requirements reviewed the STSs, made note of their 
safety merits, and indicated its support of conversion by operating 
plants to the STSs. For BVPS-1 and 2, NUREG-1431 documents the STSs and 
forms the basis for the BVPS-1 and 2 conversion to the ITSs.
    The proposed changes to the CTSs are based on NUREG-1431 and the 
guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement. The objective of this 
action is to rewrite, reformat, and streamline the CTSs (i.e., to 
convert the CTSs to the ITSs). Emphasis was placed on human factors 
principles to improve clarity and understanding.
    Some specifications in the CTSs would be relocated. Such relocated 
specifications would include those requirements which do not meet the 
10 CFR 50.36 selection criteria. These requirements may be relocated to 
the TS Bases document, the BVPS-1 and 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report, the Core Operating Limits Report, the operational quality 
assurance plan, plant procedures, or other licensee-controlled 
documents. Relocating requirements to licensee-controlled documents 
does not eliminate them, but rather places them under more appropriate 
regulatory controls (i.e., 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3), and 10 CFR 50.59) to 
manage their implementation and future changes.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the conversion to ITSs would not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and would 
not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological 
effluents. The proposed action will not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of 
effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant 
increase in the amount of any effluent released off site. There is no 
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites because 
no previously undisturbed area will be affected by the proposed 
amendment. The proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant 
effluents and has no other effect on the environment. Therefore, there 
are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated 
with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and, thus, 
the proposed action will not have any significant impact to the human 
environment.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. Thus, the environmental impacts of the proposed 
action and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    The action does not involve the use of any different resources than 
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for 
BVPS-1 and 2 dated July 1973 and September 1985, respectively.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on January 23, 2007, the NRC 
staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Lawrence Ryan, of 
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no 
comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined 
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated June 29, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated 
February 25, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated November 11, 2005, 
April 19, September 9, October 24, and December 7, 2006, and the 
information provided to the NRC staff through the joint NRC/BVPS ITS 
Conversion web page. 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 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/
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 or 301-415-
4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of January 2007.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nadiyah S. Morgan,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E7-2373 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P