STP Nuclear Operating Company; South Texas Project, Units 1 And 2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing, 32332-32334 [E7-11300]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
32332
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Notices
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos . 50–097 and 50–157]
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Notice of License Terminations for
Cornell University Zero Power Reactor
(ZPR) and Cornell University Triga
Reactor
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is noticing the
termination of Facility Operating
License No. R–89 for the Zero Power
Reactor (ZPR) and Facility Operating
License No. R–80 for the TRIGA
Reactor.
The NRC has terminated the license of
the decommissioned ZPR and TRIGA
reactor, at the Ward Center for Nuclear
Studies (Ward Center) on the Cornell
University campus in Cornell, New
York, and has released the site for
unrestricted use. The licensee requested
termination of the license in a letter to
NRC dated February 28, 2007. The Ward
Center TRIGA Reactor and ZPR
provided training for Nuclear
Engineering students and various
services for researchers in all
departments of the College of
Engineering, the College of Arts and
Sciences (departments of Physics,
Chemistry, Biology) and the College of
Veterinary Medicine. The University
permanently ceased operation of the
ZPR on September 6, 1996. Cornell
University stopped routine operation of
the Ward Center TRIGA Reactor on June
30, 2002.
Cornell submitted the
Decommissioning Plan for the Ward
Center on August 22, 2003, as
supplemented on May 13, September
27, October 26 and December 13, 2005,
and February 13, 2006. The NRC
approved the Cornell decommissioning
plan by Amendment No. 8, dated June
6, 2006, and by Amendment No. 14,
dated June 15, 2006, for the Cornell
TRIGA reactor and Cornell ZPR facility
respectively.
Cornell submitted the Final Status
Survey (FSS) Plan for the Ward Center
on October 10, 2006. The NRC approved
the FSS Plan by letter dated October 26,
2006, noting that the survey plan was
consistent with the guidance in
NUREG–1757, ‘‘Consolidated
Decommissioning Guidance’’ and the
MARSSIM [Multi-Agency Radiation
Survey and Site Investigation Manual]
methodology.
Cornell submitted the FSS report for
the former Ward Center on January 19,
2007. The NRC approved the FSS report
by letter dated February 8, 2007, noting
that the survey data was in accordance
with the Decommissioning Plan and the
FSS Plan. The report documented that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
11:38 Jun 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
compliance with the criteria in the NRCapproved decommissioning plan for
both reactors had been demonstrated.
On April 27, 2007, NRC Region I
issued inspection reports 05000097/
2006001 and 05000157/2006001 for the
research reactors at the Ward Center.
The inspector interviewed licensee staff,
observed work in progress, and
reviewed selected documents related to
the licensee’s FSS measurements. The
inspector concluded that measurements,
sampling, and analyses performed were
consistent with criteria specified in the
FSS Plan. The inspector also made
confirmatory measurements throughout
the facility and obtained six split
samples (three exterior soil samples and
three slag/gravel samples from beneath
the reactor pool) which were submitted
to the NRC’s analytical contractor. The
confirmatory measurements and
confirmatory sample results did not
identify radioactive material in excess of
the criteria specified in the FSS Plan.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(b)(6), the
NRC staff has concluded that both
reactors have been decommissioned in
accordance with the approved
decommissioning plans and that the
terminal radiation surveys and
associated documentation demonstrate
that the facilities and site may be
released in accordance with the criteria
in the NRC-approved decommissioning
plans. Further, on the basis of the
decommissioning activities carried out
by Cornell, the NRC’s review of the
licensee’s final status survey report, the
results of NRC inspections conducted at
the Ward Center, and the results of NRC
confirmatory surveys, the NRC has
concluded that the decommissioning
process is complete and the facilities
and sites may be released for
unrestricted use. Therefore Facility
Operating License Nos. R–89 and R–80
are terminated.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s letter
dated February 28, 2007. The above
referenced documents may be
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) at
One White Flint North, 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, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who have problems in
accessing the documents in ADAMS
should call the NRC PDR reference staff
at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737 or
e-mail pdr@nrc.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day
of June 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Keith I. McConnell,
Deputy Director, Decommissioning and
Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate,
Division of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection, Office of Federal
and State Materials and Environmental
Management Programs.
[FR Doc. E7–11333 Filed 6–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499]
STP Nuclear Operating Company;
South Texas Project, Units 1 And 2;
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses, numbered
NPF–76 and NPF–80, issued to STP
Nuclear Operating Company et. al. (the
licensee) for operation of the South
Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2,
respectively, located in Matagorda
County, Texas.
The proposed amendments would
provide a new action for selected
Technical Specifications (TSs) limiting
conditions for operation to permit
extending the completion times of
action requirements, provided risk is
assessed and managed. A new program,
the Configuration Risk Management
Program (CRMP), would be added to the
Administrative Controls of TSs.
The amendments request is a pilot
submittal in support of risk-informed TS
initiative 4b. The Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) has separately developed
a risk-informed methodology,
documented in NEI 06–09 Rev. 0, which
provides a method to evaluate and
extend completion times using a CRMP
in support of initiative 4b. This
methodology document has been
approved by the NRC staff in a safety
evaluation dated May 17, 2007.
Before issuance of the proposed
license amendments, 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
amendments request involves no
significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission’s regulations in Title 10
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Notices
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), § 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendments would not (1)
Involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration, which is
presented below:
1. Does the proposed change to the
Technical Specifications involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to the Technical
Specifications to add a new TS 3.13.1 and TS
3.13.2 and to change specific TS to apply the
new TS 3.13.1 do not involve a significant
increase in the probability of an accident
previously evaluated because the changes
involve no change to the plant or its modes
of operation. In addition, the risk-informed
configuration management program will be
applied to effectively manage the availability
of required systems, structures, and
components to assure there is no significant
increase in the probability of an accident.
These proposed changes do not increase the
consequences of an accident because the
design-basis mitigation function of the
affected systems is not changed and the riskinformed configuration management program
will be applied to effectively manage the
availability of systems, structures and
components required to mitigate the
consequences of an accident. The application
of the risk-informed configuration
management program is considered a
substantial technological improvement over
current methods.
Changing TS 6.8.3.k to reference the EPRI
[Electric Power Research Institute] RiskManaged Technical Specification Guidelines
is an administrative change that establishes
the industry standard as the STP licensing
basis. Meeting the standard provides
additional assurance that the risk
management program properly manages the
plant configuration risk. Consequently, it
does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Changes to the affected TS require some
minor grammatical and structure changes to
effectively incorporate the reference to TS
3.13.1. These changes are editorial and
administrative and have no safety
significance. The changes to the TS Index are
administrative and have no technical or
safety significance.
Therefore, none of the proposed changes
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change to the
Technical Specifications create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
VerDate Aug<31>2005
11:38 Jun 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
None of the proposed changes involves a
new mode of operation or design
configuration. There are no new or different
systems, structures, or components proposed
by these changes. Therefore, there is no
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident.
3. Does the proposed change to the
Technical Specifications involve a significant
reduction to a margin of safety?
Proposed new TS 3.13.1 and TS 3.13.2 and
the associated changes to the specifications
that apply the new TS 3.13.1 implement a
risk-informed configuration management
program to assure that adequate margins of
safety are maintained. Application of these
new specifications and the configuration
management program considers cumulative
effects of multiple systems or components
being out of service and does so more
effectively than the current Technical
Specifications. Therefore, application of
these new specifications will not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Changing TS 6.8.31k to reference the EPRI
Risk-Managed Technical Specification
Guidelines is an administrative change that
establishes the industry standard as the STP
licensing basis. Meeting the standard
provides additional assurance that the risk
management program properly manages the
plant configuration risk. Consequently, it
does not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety.
Changes to the affected TS require some
minor grammatical and structure changes to
effectively incorporate the reference to TS
3.13.1. These changes are editorial and
administrative and have no safety
significance. The changes to the TS Index are
administrative and have no technical or
safety significance.
Based on the evaluation above, none of the
proposed changes involves a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendments 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 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendments
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32333
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 licenses
and any person whose interest may be
affected by this proceeding and who
wishes to participate as a party in the
proceeding must file a written request
for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene. Requests for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene shall be
filed in accordance with the
Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10
CFR part 2. Interested persons should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the Commission’s
PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area O1F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, 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
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
32334
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Notices
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestors/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the petitioner/
requestor seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner/requestor shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the petitioner intends to
rely in proving the contention at the
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must
also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the
petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner intends to rely to establish
those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient
information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a
material issue of law or fact.
Contentions shall be limited to matters
within the scope of the amendment
under consideration. The contention
must be one which, if proven, would
entitle the petitioner to relief. A
petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy
these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
11:38 Jun 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, any hearing held would
take place before the issuance of any
amendment.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions
and contentions will not be entertained
absent a determination by the
Commission or the presiding officer of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
that the petition, request and/or the
contentions should be granted based on
a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition
for leave to intervene must be filed by:
(1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express
mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4)
facsimile transmission addressed to the
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101,
verification number is (301) 415–1966.
A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should
also be sent to the Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, and it is requested that copies be
transmitted either by means of facsimile
transmission to 301–415–3725 or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy
of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be
sent to A.H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004,
the attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this
action, see the application for
amendment dated June 6, 2006, which
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
is available for public inspection at the
Commission’s PDR, located at One
White Flint North, File Public Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible from
the 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/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 5th day
of June, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mohan C Thadani,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7–11300 Filed 6–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Sunshine Federal Register Notice
Weeks of June 11, 18, 25, July 2,
9, 16, 2007.
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public and closed.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
DATE:
Week of June 11, 2007
There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of June 11, 2007.
Week of June 18, 2007—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of June 18, 2007.
Week of June 25, 2007—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of June 25, 2007.
Week of July 2, 2007—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of July 2, 2007.
Week of July 9, 2007—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of July 9, 2007.
Week of July 16, 2007—Tentative
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
1 p.m. Briefing on Digital
Instrumentation and Control (Public
Meeting).
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32332-32334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11300]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499]
STP Nuclear Operating Company; South Texas Project, Units 1 And
2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licenses,
numbered NPF-76 and NPF-80, issued to STP Nuclear Operating Company et.
al. (the licensee) for operation of the South Texas Project (STP),
Units 1 and 2, respectively, located in Matagorda County, Texas.
The proposed amendments would provide a new action for selected
Technical Specifications (TSs) limiting conditions for operation to
permit extending the completion times of action requirements, provided
risk is assessed and managed. A new program, the Configuration Risk
Management Program (CRMP), would be added to the Administrative
Controls of TSs.
The amendments request is a pilot submittal in support of risk-
informed TS initiative 4b. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has
separately developed a risk-informed methodology, documented in NEI 06-
09 Rev. 0, which provides a method to evaluate and extend completion
times using a CRMP in support of initiative 4b. This methodology
document has been approved by the NRC staff in a safety evaluation
dated May 17, 2007.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, 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
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Title 10
[[Page 32333]]
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Sec. 50.92, this means
that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendments would not (1) Involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change to the Technical Specifications
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications to add a
new TS 3.13.1 and TS 3.13.2 and to change specific TS to apply the
new TS 3.13.1 do not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated because the changes
involve no change to the plant or its modes of operation. In
addition, the risk-informed configuration management program will be
applied to effectively manage the availability of required systems,
structures, and components to assure there is no significant
increase in the probability of an accident. These proposed changes
do not increase the consequences of an accident because the design-
basis mitigation function of the affected systems is not changed and
the risk-informed configuration management program will be applied
to effectively manage the availability of systems, structures and
components required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. The
application of the risk-informed configuration management program is
considered a substantial technological improvement over current
methods.
Changing TS 6.8.3.k to reference the EPRI [Electric Power
Research Institute] Risk-Managed Technical Specification Guidelines
is an administrative change that establishes the industry standard
as the STP licensing basis. Meeting the standard provides additional
assurance that the risk management program properly manages the
plant configuration risk. Consequently, it does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Changes to the affected TS require some minor grammatical and
structure changes to effectively incorporate the reference to TS
3.13.1. These changes are editorial and administrative and have no
safety significance. The changes to the TS Index are administrative
and have no technical or safety significance.
Therefore, none of the proposed changes involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change to the Technical Specifications
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated?
None of the proposed changes involves a new mode of operation or
design configuration. There are no new or different systems,
structures, or components proposed by these changes. Therefore,
there is no possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed change to the Technical Specifications
involve a significant reduction to a margin of safety?
Proposed new TS 3.13.1 and TS 3.13.2 and the associated changes
to the specifications that apply the new TS 3.13.1 implement a risk-
informed configuration management program to assure that adequate
margins of safety are maintained. Application of these new
specifications and the configuration management program considers
cumulative effects of multiple systems or components being out of
service and does so more effectively than the current Technical
Specifications. Therefore, application of these new specifications
will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Changing TS 6.8.31k to reference the EPRI Risk-Managed Technical
Specification Guidelines is an administrative change that
establishes the industry standard as the STP licensing basis.
Meeting the standard provides additional assurance that the risk
management program properly manages the plant configuration risk.
Consequently, it does not involve a significant reduction in the
margin of safety.
Changes to the affected TS require some minor grammatical and
structure changes to effectively incorporate the reference to TS
3.13.1. These changes are editorial and administrative and have no
safety significance. The changes to the TS Index are administrative
and have no technical or safety significance.
Based on the evaluation above, none of the proposed changes
involves a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendments 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 amendments 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 licenses and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 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
[[Page 32334]]
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the
Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion.
The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition,
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV;
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be sent to A.H. Gutterman, Esq.,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20004, the attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated June 6, 2006, which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, File Public Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from
the 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/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 5th day of June, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mohan C Thadani,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-11300 Filed 6-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
