[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8068-8076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2143]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an
operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from January 17, 2008, to January 30, 2008. The
last biweekly notice was published on (73 FR 5215).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services,
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also
be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave
to intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice,
person(s) 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
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system 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 person(s) should consult a current copy of
10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at
One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request
for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60
days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition;
and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an
appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the
[[Page 8069]]
applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be
limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under
consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would
entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who
fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment.
A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated in August 28, 2007, (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media.
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/ requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and is
available at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line,
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or
locally, (301) 415-4737.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such
filings must be submitted 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; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses,
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by email to [email protected].
[[Page 8070]]
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station,
Unit No.1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: June 21, 2007.
Description of amendment request: A change is proposed to the
technical specifications (TSs) of Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1
(CPS), consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-423 to the
standard technical specifications (STSs) for boiling-water reactor
(BWR) plants to allow, for some systems, entry into hot shutdown rather
than cold shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is assessed and managed
consistent with the program in place for complying with the
requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Section 50.65(a)(4). The proposed amendment would modify the TS to
risk-informed requirements regarding selected required action end
states provided in TSTF-423, Revision 0, ``Technical Specification End
States, NEDC-32988-A.''
The CPS has reviewed the proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC) determination published on March 23, 2006, (71 FR
14743) as part of the consolidated line item improvement process and,
based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR
50.92(c) are satisfied. The licensee has affirmed the applicability of
the following NSHC determination in its application.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change allows a change to certain required end
states when the TS Completion Times for remaining in power operation
will be exceeded. Most of the requested technical specification (TS)
changes are to permit an end state of hot shutdown (Mode 3) rather
than an end state of cold shutdown (Mode 4) contained in the current
TS. The request was limited to: (1) Those end states where entry
into the shutdown mode is for a short interval, (2) entry is
initiated by inoperability of a single train of equipment or a
restriction on a plant operational parameter, unless otherwise
stated in the applicable technical specification, and (3) the
primary purpose is to correct the initiating condition and return to
power operation as soon as is practical. Risk insights from both the
qualitative and quantitative risk assessments were used in specific
TS assessments. Such assessments are documented in Section 6 of GE
NEDC-32988, Revision 2, ``Technical Justification to Support Risk
Informed Modification to Selected Required Action End States for BWR
Plants.'' They provide an integrated discussion of deterministic and
probabilistic issues, focusing on specific technical specifications,
which are used to support the proposed TS end state and associated
restrictions. The [NRC] staff finds that the risk insights support
the conclusions of the specific TS assessments. Therefore, the
probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly
increased, if at all. The consequences of an accident after adopting
proposed TSTF-423, are no different than the consequences of an
accident prior to adopting TSTF-423. Therefore, the consequences of
an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by
this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the
risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible
concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
If risk is assessed and managed, allowing a change to certain
required end states when the TS Completion Times for remaining in
power operation are exceeded, i.e., entry into hot shutdown rather
than cold shutdown to repair equipment, will not introduce new
failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other
unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed
the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of
a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this
change and the commitment by the licensee to adhere to the guidance
in TSTF-IG-05-02, Implementation Guidance for TSTF-423, Revision 0,
``Technical Specifications End States, NEDC-32988-A,'' will further
minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The proposed change allows, for some systems, entry into hot
shutdown rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is
assessed and managed. The BWROG's risk assessment approach is
comprehensive and follows [NRC] staff guidance as documented in RGs
[Regulatory Guides] 1.174 and 1.177. In addition, the analyses show
that the criteria of the three-tiered approach for allowing TS
changes are met. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was
assessed following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG
1.177. A risk assessment was performed to justify the proposed TS
changes. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee and
based on this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c)
are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: January 14, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to control
room envelope habitability in accordance with TS Task Force (TSTF)
traveler TSTF-448-A, ``Control Room Habitability,'' Revision 3.
The NRC staff issued a ``Notice of Availability of Technical
Specification Improvement to Modify Requirements Regarding Control Room
Envelope Habitability Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement
Process'' in the Federal Register on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022). The
notice referenced a model safety evaluation, a model no significant
hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, and a model license
amendment request published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2006
(71 FR 61075). In its application dated January 14, 2008, the licensee
affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination which is
presented below.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of NSHC adopted by the licensee is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency
ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to
minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE
atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents
previously analyzed. An important part of
[[Page 8071]]
the CRE emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE
emergency ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any
accident previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to
verify the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a
program to assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE
emergency ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating
radiological consequences to CRE occupants during accident
conditions, and that the CRE emergency ventilation system will
perform as assumed in the consequence analyses of design basis
accidents. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The
proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of
the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during
accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of
design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No
new or different accidents result from performing the new
surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed
change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is
consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this
change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe
shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee
and, based upon this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine
that the request for amendment involves NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power
Plant (HBPP), Unit 3 Humboldt County, California
Date of amendment request: November 5, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The licensee has proposed an
amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-7 for HBPP Unit 3 to
delete the paragraph 2.C.1 requirement to implement and maintain a
physical security plan. In conjunction with this request the licensee
is also requesting exemptions from the requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(p)
``Conditions of Licenses'' and 10 CFR 73 ``Physical Protection of
Plants and Materials.'' In addition, the licensee is requesting
rescission of NRC Order EA-02-077, ``Order for Interim Safeguards and
Security Compensatory Measures'' and NRC Order EA-03-099, ``Order for
the Implementation of Additional Security Measures Associated with
Access Authorization, Fitness for Duty and Behavior Observation.''
The requested license amendment, exemption and rescission would
eliminate the security, fitness for duty and access authorization
requirements for HBPP Unit 3 after spent nuclear fuel assemblies and
fuel fragment containers have been transferred from the Spent Fuel Pool
(SFP) to the Humboldt Bay (HB) Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI).
The licensee will be required to provide protection for the spent
fuel in the HB ISFSI in accordance with the HB ISFSI physical security
plan approved by NRC License SNM-2514, dated November 17, 2005, to meet
the requirements of 10 CFR 72, subpart H, ``Physical Protection.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
(1) Does the change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The structures, systems, and components of the Humboldt Bay
Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3 and the operating procedures for their use
are unaffected by the proposed change. The elimination of the
security requirements for HBPP Unit 3 does not affect possible
initiating events for accidents previously evaluated or alter the
configuration or operation of the facility.
The accidents previously evaluated include spent fuel handling
accident, Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) rupture, heavy load drop onto fuel
in the SFP, uncontrolled release of radioactive liquid radioactive
waste, explosions, release of toxic chemicals and fire. None of
these accidents are impacted by the elimination of security
requirements.
(2) Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is security related and has no direct impact
on plant equipment or the procedures for operating plant equipment.
The safety analysis for the facility remains complete and accurate.
There are no physical changes to the facility, and the plant
conditions for which the design basis accidents have been evaluated
are still valid.
(3) Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change is security related and has no direct impact
on plant equipment or the procedures for operating plant equipment.
There are no changes to the design or operation of the facility.
The assumptions for a fuel handling and other accidents are not
affected by the proposed license amendment. Accordingly, neither the
design basis nor the accident assumptions in the Defueled Safety
Analysis Report nor the Technical Specifications Bases are affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jennifer K. Post, Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, 77 Beale Street, B30A, San Francisco, CA.
NRC Branch Chief: Andrew Persinko.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of Amendment Request:
January 17, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.6, ``Control Room Normal and
Emergency Air Handling System,'' and TS Section 6.8, ``Procedures and
Programs.'' These changes are based on TS Task Force (TSTF) change
traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3 that has been approved generically for
the Standard Technical Specifications--
[[Page 8072]]
Westinghouse Plants, NUREG-1431. The NRC staff issued a notice of
availability of a model safety evaluation and model no significant
hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing in license
amendment applications in the Federal Register on January 17, 2007 (72
FR 2022). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC
determination in its application dated January 17, 2008.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits.
The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE [control room
envelope] emergency ventilation system, which is a mitigation system
designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to
filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event
of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE
emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency
ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated
is not increased. Performing tests to verify the operability of the
CRE boundary and implementing a program to assess and maintain CRE
habitability ensure that the CRE emergency ventilation system is
capable of adequately mitigating radiological consequences to CRE
occupants during accident conditions, and that the CRE emergency
ventilation system will perform as assumed in the consequence
analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the consequences of any
accident previously evaluated are not increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The
proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of
the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during
accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of
design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No
new or different accidents result from performing the new
surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant
change in the methods governing normal plant operation.
The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis
assumptions and is consistent with current plant operating practice.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe
shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous
discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not
involve a no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for Licensee: Thomas G. Eppink, South Carolina Electric &
Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 29218.
NRC Branch Chief: Melanie Wong, Acting Chief.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: November 8, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specification 3/4.8.2, ``DC Sources,'' to modify
battery surveillance requirements. Specifically, the proposed changes
would allow battery performance discharge testing to be performed while
the associated unit is at power.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
The proposed change[s] [do] not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Performance of the surveillance is not an accident initiator.
Consequently, the probability of an accident occurring is not
affected by [these] proposed change[s]. Accident mitigation will be
provided by the redundant channels should an accident occur while a
channel is being tested.
The risk-informed configuration management program, as approved
in Amendments 179 and 166, effectively manages the availability of
required systems, structures, and components to assure there is no
significant increase in the probability of an accident. Therefore,
the proposed change[s] [do] not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change[s] [do] not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
The proposed change[s] [do] not involve a new mode of operation
or design configuration. The only change is in the duration of a
battery's unavailability, which is established consistent with the
level of associated risk. Therefore, the proposed change[s] [do] not
create the possibility of a new or different accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change[s] [do] not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The risk-informed configuration management program assures that
adequate margins of safety are maintained. The configuration
management program considers cumulative effects of multiple systems
and components being out of service. Therefore, the proposed
change[s] [do] not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: A.H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: January 15, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the Technical Specification (TS) to establish more effective and
appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative requirements
related to ensuring the habitability of the control room envelope (CRE)
in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task
Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification
[[Page 8073]]
change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.''
Specifically, the proposed amendment would modify TS 3.7.10, ``Control
Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS),'' and would establish a CRE
habitability (CREH) program in TS Section 5.5, ``Administrative
Controls--Programs and Manuals.'' The NRC staff issued a ``Notice of
Availability of Technical Specification Improvement to Modify
Requirements Regarding Control Room Envelope Habitability Using the
Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process'' associated with TSTF-448,
Revision 3, in the Federal Register on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022).
The notice included a model safety evaluation, a model no significant
hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, and a model license
amendment request. In its application dated January 15, 2008, the
licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination
which is presented below.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of NSHC adopted by the licensee is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency
ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to
minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE
atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents
previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency
ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency
ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident
previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify
the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to
assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency
ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological
consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that
the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the
consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The
proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of
the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during
accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of
design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No
new or different accidents result from performing the new
surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed
change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is
consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this
change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe
shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee
and, based on this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine
that the request for amendments involves NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: Terence A. Burke, Associate General
Council--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Date of application for amendments: December 21, 2006.
Brief Description of amendments: The amendments change the
Technical Specifications (TSs) related to the reactor recirculation
system flow balance.
Date of issuance: December 17, 2007.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 244 and 272.
[[Page 8074]]
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments
changed the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (72 FR
11385).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 17, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit No. 2 New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: November 8, 2006, as supplemented by
letters dated May 4, October 4, and November 27, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) Action and
Surveillance Requirements for instrumentation identified in TSs 3.3.1
and 3.3.2. In particular, the amendment adds actions to address the
inoperability of one or more automatic bypass removal channels; revises
the terminology used in the notation of TS 2.2-1 and 3.3-1 relative to
the implementation and automatic removal of certain Reactor Protective
System trip bypasses; revises the frequency for performing surveillance
of the automatic bypass removal function logic; and incorporates two
administrative changes.
Date of issuance: January 29, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 301.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised the
License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 24, 2007 (72 FR
20380).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 29, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315, Donald C. Cook
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCCNP-1 and DCCNP-2), Berrien County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendments: May 11, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the DCCNP-1
and DCCNP-2 Technical Specifications to increase the power level at
which performance of the trip actuating device operational test (TADOT)
of a reactor trip following a turbine trip signal is required.
Specifically, the previous Surveillance Requirement 3.3.1.18 required
performance of a TADOT of a reactor trip on turbine trip prior to
exceeding the P-7 interlock (at approximately 10 percent of the rated
thermal power (RTP)) whenever the unit has been in Mode 3, if not
performed within the previous 31 days. The amendments replace the ``P-
7'' interlock with the ``P-8'' interlock (at approximately 31 percent
RTP).
Date of issuance: January 11, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 45 days.
Amendment No.: 301 (for DCCNP-1) and 284 (for DCCNP-2).
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: Amendments
revise the Renewed Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 19, 2007 (72 FR
33783).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated January 11, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell
County, Texas
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2006, as supplemented by
letters dated November 30, and December 6, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical
Specifications (TS) 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System,'' TS
3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' TS 3.8.9,
``Distribution Systems--Operating,'' and TS Example 1.3-3.
Date of issuance: January 25, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--142; Unit 2--142.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 10, 2007 (72 FR
17952). The supplemental letters dated November 30, and December 6,
2007, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register on
April 10, 2007 (72 FR 17952). The Commission's related evaluation of
the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 25,
2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear
Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendment: September 17, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specifications Section 3.7.5 to specify the conditions and required
actions associated with two control room ventilation subsystems
inoperable. The revised Section 3.7.5 follows Technical Specifications
Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-477, Revision 3, ``Add Action
for Two Inoperable Control Room AC Subsystems.''
Date of issuance: January 23, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 154.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2007 (72 FR
62689).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 23, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,
Minnesota
Date of application for amendments: January 29, 2007, supplemented
by letters dated November 19, 2007, and December 13, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.3 ``ECCS-Shutdown'' for Prairie Island
Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2 to change operability
requirements for the safety injection (SI) subsystem by addition of a
Note to the Limiting Condition for Operation 3.5.3 ``One ECCS train
shall be OPERABLE.'' The Note states ``An SI train may be considered
OPERABLE when the pump is capable of being manually started from the
control room.''
[[Page 8075]]
Date of issuance: January 28, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 183, 173.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (72 FR
11392).
The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did
not change the initial no significant hazards consideration
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal
Register notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments
is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 28, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received. No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: April 17, 2007, as supplemented
by letter dated June 29, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment establishes more
effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative
requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room
envelope in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room
Habitability.''
Date of issuance: January 24, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 180 days.
Amendment No.: 173.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2007 (72 FR
31103).
The letter dated June 29, 2007, provided clarifying information
that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination or expand the application beyond the scope
of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 24, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendments: April 15, 2007, as supplemented
on December 10, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments establish more
effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative
requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room
envelope in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room
Habitability.''
Date of issuance: January 24, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 180 days.
Amendment Nos.: 286 and 269.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications and the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2007 (72 FR
31104).
The letter dated December 10, 2007, provided clarifying information
that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination or expand the application beyond the scope
of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 24, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment: April 25, 2007, as supplemented
August 22, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specification Surveillance Requirements 3.5.1.4, ``Accumulators,'' and
3.5.4.3, ``Refueling Water Storage Tanks,'' to remove the note limiting
the number of tritium producing burnable absorber rods (TPBARs) to no
more than 240, and revises TS 4.2.1, ``Fuel Assemblies,'' to revise the
maximum number of TPBARs that can be irradiated in the Watts Bar Unit 1
reactor core to 400.
Date of issuance: January 18, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 45 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 67.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revises the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2007 (72 FR
31105). The supplemental letter dated August 22, 2007, provided
clarifying information that was within the scope of the initial notice
and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 18, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments: February 26, 2007, as
supplemented on April 5, May 31, July 13, July 20, September 25, and
November 28, 2007, and January 14, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: These amendments added an
operating license condition and revised the technical specifications to
permit the replacement of main control room (MCR) and emergency
switchgear room (ESGR) air-conditioning system (ACS) chilled water
piping by using temporary 45-day and 14-day allowed outage times (AOTs)
four times in a 24-month span.
Date of issuance: January 23, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 258, 257.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:
Amendments changed the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 27, 2007 (72 FR
14308).
The supplements dated April 5, May 31, July 13, July 20, September
25, and November 28, 2007, and January 14, 2008, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated January 23, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of January 2008.
[[Page 8076]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-2143 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P