[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31894-31899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12454]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-423]


Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Millstone Power Station, Unit 
3; Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 
Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum 
Reactor Power Level

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) as 
its evaluation of a request by Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC 
or the licensee), for a license amendment to increase the maximum 
thermal power at the Millstone Power Station, Unit 3 (Millstone 3), 
from 3,411 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,650 MWt. The NRC staff did not 
identify any significant impact from the information provided in the 
licensee's stretch power uprate (SPU) application for Millstone 3 or 
from the NRC staff's independent review; therefore, the NRC staff is 
documenting its environmental review in a draft EA. The draft EA and 
Finding of No Significant Impact are being published in the Federal 
Register with a 30-day public comment period.

Environmental Assessment

    The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility 
Operating License No. NPF-49, issued to DNC for operation of Millstone 
3, located in New London County, Connecticut. Therefore, as required by 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 51.21, the 
NRC is issuing this draft environmental assessment and finding of no 
significant impact.

Plant Site and Environs

    Millstone 3 is located in the Town of Waterford, Connecticut, about 
40 miles east of New Haven and 40 miles southeast of Hartford, 
Connecticut. Millstone 3 is located on Millstone Point between the 
Niantic and Thames Rivers. The site sits on the edge of the Long Island 
Sound and Niantic Bay and is approximately 20 miles west of Rhode 
Island.
    The site is approximately 525 acres including the developed portion 
of the site, which is approximately 220 acres in size. In addition to 
Millstone 3, the site includes the shutdown Millstone Power Station, 
Unit 1 reactor and the operating Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 
reactor.
    The site includes approximately 50 acres of natural area and 
approximately

[[Page 31895]]

30 acres of recreational playing fields licensed to the Town of 
Waterford. Approximately 300 acres of the site are outside the land 
developed for the power station. The transmission lines that connect 
the Millstone Power Station to the New England grid along with the 
switchyard equipment are owned and maintained by the Connecticut Light 
and Power Company.
    The exclusion area coincides with the site property boundary. The 
nearest residences are approximately 2400 feet from the reactors. The 
region within 6 miles of the site includes parts of the towns of 
Waterford, New London, Groton, East Lyme, and Old Lyme.

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would revise the Millstone 3 renewed facility 
operating license and technical specifications to increase the licensed 
rated power by approximately 7 percent from 3,411 MWt to 3,650 MWt. The 
proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated 
July 13, 2007. If approved, the SPU would be implemented during the 
scheduled fall 2008 refueling outage.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action permits an increase in the licensed core 
thermal power from 3,411 MWt to 3,650 MWt for Millstone 3, providing 
the flexibility to obtain a higher electrical output from the Millstone 
Power Station. The proposed action is intended to provide an additional 
supply of electric generation in the State of Connecticut without the 
need to site and construct new facilities or to impose new sources of 
air or water discharges to the environment. The proposed action is 
intended to supply approximately 85 megawatts of additional electric 
capacity in a region of the New England Independent System Operator 
(ISO-NE) system where peak loads generally exceed local generation 
capacity.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The licensee has submitted an environmental evaluation supporting 
the proposed SPU and provided a summary of its conclusions concerning 
the radiological and non-radiological environmental impacts of the 
proposed action.

Non-radiological Impacts

Land Use Impacts
    The proposed SPU would not affect land use at the site. No new 
construction is planned outside of the existing facilities, and no 
expansion of buildings, roads, parking lots, equipment storage areas, 
or transmission facilities would be required to support the proposed 
SPU. The proposed SPU would not require the storage of additional 
industrial chemicals or storage tanks on the site.

Transmission Facilities

    The proposed SPU would not require any new transmission lines, 
transmission line conductor modifications, or new equipment to support 
SPU operation and would not require changes in the maintenance and 
operation of existing transmission lines, switchyards, or substations.
    The licensee did not provide an estimate of the increase in the 
operating voltage due to the proposed SPU. Based on experience from 
SPUs at other plants, the NRC staff concludes that the increase in the 
operating voltage would be negligible. Because the voltage would not 
change significantly, there would be no significant change in the 
potential for electric shock.
    The proposed SPU would increase the current. The National Electric 
Safety Code (NESC) provides design criteria that limit hazards from 
steady-state currents. The NESC limits the short-circuit current to the 
ground to less than 5 milliamperes. The transmission lines meet the 
applicable shock prevention provision of the NESC. Therefore, even with 
the slight increase in current attributable to the SPU, adequate 
protection is provided against hazards from electrical shock.
    There would be an increase in current passing through the 
transmission lines associated with the increased power level of the 
proposed SPU. The increased electrical current passing through the 
transmission lines would cause an increase in electromagnetic field 
(EMF) strength. However, there is no scientific consensus regarding the 
health effects of EMFs produced by operating transmission lines. 
Therefore, the licensee did not quantify the chronic effects of EMF on 
human and biota. The potential for chronic effects for these fields 
continues to be studied and is not known at this time. The National 
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related 
research through the U.S Department of Energy. A 2003 NIEHS study 
published in Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 111, Number 3, 
dated March 2003, titled ``Power-Line Frequency Electromagnetic Fields 
Do Not Induce Changes in Phosphorylation, Localization, or Expression 
of the 27-Kilodalton Heat Shock Protein in Human Keratinocytes,'' by 
Biao Shi, Behnom Farboud, Richard Nuccitelli, and R. Rivkah Isseroff of 
the University of California, contains the following conclusion:

    ``The linkage of the exposure to the power-line frequency (50-60 
Hz) electromagnetic fields (EMF) with human cancers remains 
controversial after more than 10 years of study. The in vitro 
studies on the adverse effects of EMF on human cells have not 
yielded a clear conclusion. In this study, we investigated whether 
power-line frequency EMF could act as an environmental insult to 
invoke stress responses in human keratinocytes using the 27-kDa heat 
shock protein (HSP27) as a stress marker. After exposure to 1 gauss 
(100 [mu]T) EMF from 20 min to 24 hr, the isoform pattern of HSP27 
in keratinocytes remained unchanged, suggesting that EMF did not 
induce the phosphorylation of this stress protein. EMF exposure also 
failed to induce the translocation of HSP27 from the cytoplasm to 
the nucleus. Moreover, EMF exposure did not increase the abundance 
of HSP27 in keratinocytes. In addition, we found no evidence that 
EMF exposure enhanced the level of the 70-kDa heat shock protein 
(HSP70) in breast or leukemia cells as reported previously. 
Therefore, in this study we did not detect any of a number of stress 
responses in human keratinocytes exposed to power-line frequency 
EMF.''

    To date, there is not sufficient data to cause the NRC staff to 
change its position with respect to the chronic effects of EMFs. If, in 
the future, the NRC staff finds that, contrary to current indications, 
a consensus has been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies 
that there are adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields, the 
NRC staff will recommend the Commission change its current position 
regard EMF.
Water Use Impacts
    The proposed SPU would increase the temperature of water discharged 
from Millstone 3. Temperatures at the discharge point would range from 
50.5 [deg]F in January through February to 90.6 [deg]F in August 
through September. The maximum expected discharge temperature at 100 
percent power under SPU conditions is 94.5 [deg]F. Under all SPU 
conditions, Millstone Power Station will continue to operate in 
conformance with the existing National Pollution Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) permit conditions. The site NPDES permit limits the 
maximum temperature of the circulating water discharge to the quarry to 
98 [deg]F, the maximum change in temperature from Niantic Bay to the 
quarry to 24 [deg]F, and the maximum temperature of water entering Long 
Island Sound at the quarry cut is 105 [deg]F. The discharge is not 
allowed to increase the temperature of Long Island Sound beyond the 
plant's 8,000-ft radius mixing zone by more than an average of 4 [deg]F 
and not to

[[Page 31896]]

exceed a maximum of 83 [deg]F. The maximum temperature rise across the 
condenser under SPU conditions is 19.5 [deg]F, which remains below the 
NPDES permit limit of 24 [deg]F. With the ocean temperature at its 
design maximum temperature of 75 [deg]F, the circulating water 
discharge temperature increases to a maximum of 94.5 [deg]F during 
normal 100-percent power operation, which remains below the NPDES 
discharge limit of 98 [deg]F. Because the increase under SPU conditions 
remains well below the facility's NPDES permit limits, the NRC staff 
determined that this increase is not significant and is bounded by 
previous NRC analysis of thermal discharge as documented in the 
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 
Power Plants: Regarding Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3,'' dated 
July 2005. No effects on the aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the 
vicinity of the plant, or to endangered or threatened species, or to 
the habitats of endangered or threatened species are expected as a 
result of the increase in thermal discharge. No measurable changes in 
the character, source, or intensity of noise generated at Millstone 
Station are expected as a result of the SPU, either inside or outside 
the plant.
Socioeconomic Impacts
    The socioeconomic impacts associated with implementing the proposed 
SPU at Millstone 3 include a minor positive contribution in relation to 
the contribution of the overall outage scope to local and regional 
economies. The proposed SPU has a small positive impact on the 
continuation of employment of the local population with the associated 
expenditures for goods and services. The amount of future property tax 
payments are dependent on the future market value of the units, future 
valuations of other properties in these jurisdictions, and other 
factors according to the licensee's proposed SPU amendment, dated July 
13, 2007.
Historic and Archaeological Resources at and Near Millstone Power 
Station
    There are 181 properties in New London County listed in the 
National Register of Historic Places, with 62 falling within a radius 
of 6 miles of the Millstone Power Station site, according to the 
licensee's proposed SPU application, dated July 13, 2007. The licensee 
also performed an archaeological records search for the Millstone Power 
Station site according to the licensee's proposed SPU application, 
dated July 13, 2007. The proposed SPU is not expected to impact 
historic or archaeological resources.
Summary
    The proposed SPU would not result in a significant change in non-
radiological impacts in the areas of land use, transmission facility 
operation, water use, socioeconomic factors, or historical or 
archaeological resources.

Radiological Impacts

Liquid Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses
    The licensee evaluated the impacts of the proposed SPU on 
radioactive liquid waste production, processing, discharge into the 
environment, resultant dose to members of the public, and impact to the 
quarry and Long Island Sound into which water is discharged. There will 
be a small increase (approximately 9.1 percent for long-lived activity) 
in the equilibrium radioactivity in the reactor coolant, which in turn 
will result in a maximum increase of 9.1 percent in the radioactivity 
content of the liquid releases, since input activities are based on 
long-term reactor coolant activity. Tritium levels are also expected to 
increase by 9.1 percent in the discharged liquid. This will result in 
increased aqueous tritium concentrations in the quarry. The releases, 
excluding tritium, would remain bounded by Table D-4a of the ``Final 
Environmental Statement [FES] related to the operation of Millstone 
Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3,'' dated December 1984, which estimates 
liquid effluent releases, excluding tritium, of about 0.56 curies per 
year. The licensee's evaluation estimates the annual average release of 
tritium to be 1,100 curies based on values from 2001 through 2005, 
which is below the value reported in the ``Generic Environmental Impact 
Statement [GEIS] for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (1996). The 
GEIS estimates an annual average of 1,330 curies of tritium liquid 
effluent release.
    The evaluation shows that even with the small increase in the 
radioactivity being discharged into the environment, the projected dose 
to the maximally exposed member of the public, while slightly 
increased, (2.61E-03 millirem (mrem) for the Whole Body and 1.26E-02 
mrem for the Critical Organ) will remain well below the ``as low as is 
reasonably achievable'' (ALARA) criteria in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 
50 (3 mrem to the total body and 10 mrem to any organ).
Gaseous Radioactive Wastes and Offsite Doses
    The licensee evaluated the impacts of the proposed SPU on gaseous 
radioactive wastes. Gaseous radioactive wastes are activation gases and 
fission product radioactive noble gases which come from radioactive 
system leakage, continuous degasification, volume control tank (VCT) 
venting, gases used for tank cover gas, and gases generated in the 
radiochemistry laboratory. The evaluation shows that the proposed SPU 
would not significantly increase the inventory of gases normally 
processed in the gaseous waste management system. This is based on no 
change to the plant system functions and no change to the gas volume 
inputs occurring under SPU conditions.
    The activity of radioactive gaseous nuclides present in the waste 
gas system will increase as a result of the SPU. This is due to the 
increased levels of gases in the reactor coolant system and the actions 
performed in the VCT. However, the operation of the waste gas system 
will not change and will continue to allow for decay of the short-lived 
radionuclides. Tritium will remain the largest component of the gaseous 
effluents, the largest contributor being from evaporation from the 
spent fuel pools. The proposed SPU will result in a small increase 
(approximately 9.5 percent for noble gases and 9.1 percent for 
particulates, iodine, and tritium) in the equilibrium radioactivity in 
the reactor coolant, which in turn increases the activity in the 
gaseous waste disposal systems and the activity released to the 
atmosphere.
    The evaluation shows that even with the small increase in the 
gaseous radioactivity being discharged into the environment, the 
projected dose to the maximally exposed member of the public, while 
slightly increased (2.03E-02 mrem to the total body or 2.11E-02 mrem to 
the skin), will remain well below the ALARA criteria in Appendix I to 
10 CFR Part 50 (5 mrem to the total body or 15 mrem to the skin).
Solid Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses
    Solid radioactive waste (radwaste) includes solids used in the 
reactor coolant system operation, solids recovered from the reactor 
coolant systems, and solids in contact with the reactor process system 
liquids or gases. While the SPU will slightly increase the activity 
level of radioactive isotopes in the reactor coolant system and the 
volume of radioactive liquid generated from leakage and planned 
drainage, there will only be a minimal effect on

[[Page 31897]]

the generation of radioactively contaminated sludge and resin solids 
processed as radwaste. The currently installed radwaste system and its 
total volume capacity for handling solid radwaste will not be affected. 
The activity of radwaste would increase proportionately to the increase 
in long half-life coolant activity, which would be bounded by a 9.1 
percent increase under SPU conditions. This increase remains well below 
the activity level of 9,100 curies identified in Table 5-21 of the FES 
for Millstone 3. The increase in volume generated is expected to be 
minor under SPU conditions.
    For the long-term operation of the plant under SPU conditions, the 
dose to an offsite member of the public from the onsite storage of 
solid radwaste is estimated to increase by approximately 10.22 percent. 
This is based on several assumptions, which are: (1) The current waste 
decays and its contribution decreases; (2) stored radwaste is routinely 
moved offsite for disposal; (3) waste generated post-SPU enters into 
storage; and (4) the plant capacity factor approaches the target of 
1.0. The radiation dose from direct shine is cumulative based on the 
waste generated and stored onsite from all units over the plant's 
lifetime. The Millstone Station Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 
contains the requirements to ensure compliance with the radiation dose 
limits of 10 CFR Part 20 (100 mrem to the whole body in a year). 
Therefore, while a small increase in offsite radiation dose is expected 
(0.17 mrem to the whole body in a year; the pre-SPU whole body in a 
year was approximately 0.12 mrem), it will remain within regulatory 
limits of 10 CFR Part 20.
Occupational Radiation Doses
    The radiation exposure to plant workers from the SPU is expected to 
be kept to a minimum based on the design features at the Millstone site 
and the Radiation Protection Program. The design features include: (1) 
Shielding, which is provided to reduce levels of radiation; (2) 
ventilation, which is arranged to control the flow of potentially 
contaminated air; (3) an installed radiation monitoring system, which 
is used to measure levels of radiation in potentially occupied areas 
and measure airborne radioactivity throughout the plant; and (4) 
respiratory protective equipment, which is used as prescribed by the 
Radiation Protection Program. The Radiation Protection Program contains 
procedures for all radiological work performed at the Millstone Power 
Station to ensure doses are maintained ALARA and in compliance with 
regulatory limits in 10 CFR Part 20.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts
    The environmental impacts of the fuel cycle and transportation of 
fuel and waste are described in 10 CFR 51.51, Table S-3 and 10 CFR 
51.52, Table S-4, respectively. An NRC generic EA (53 FR 6040, dated 
February 29, 1988) evaluated the applicability of Tables S-3 and S-4 to 
a higher burn-up fuel cycle and concluded that there would be no 
significant change in environmental impact from the parameters 
evaluated in Tables S-3 and S-4 for fuel cycles with uranium 
enrichments up to 5 weight percent uranium-235 and burn-ups less than 
60,000 MW days per metric ton of uranium-235 (MWd/MTU).
    The proposed SPU would increase the power level to 3,650 MWt, which 
is below the reference power level of 3,800 MWt for Table S-4. The fuel 
enrichment and burn-up after the SPU will continue to be no greater 
than 5 weight percent uranium-235, and the fuel burn-up will be 
maintained less than 60,000 MWd/MTU. The NRC staff concludes that the 
Millstone 3 SPU is bounded by the analysis of the environmental effects 
of the transportation of fuel and waste as described in the ``Extended 
Burnup Fuel Use in Commercial [Light Water Reactors] LWRs; 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact,'' dated 
February 29, 1988 (53 FR 6040).
Summary
    Based on the NRC staff review of licensee's submission, it is 
concluded that the proposed SPU would not significantly increase the 
consequences of accidents, would not result in a significant increase 
in occupational or public radiation exposure, and would not result in 
significant additional fuel cycle environmental impacts. Accordingly, 
the Commission concludes that there would be no significant 
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered 
denial of the proposed SPU (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in the current 
environmental impacts. However, if the proposed SPU were not approved, 
other agencies and electric power organizations may be required to 
pursue alternative means of providing electric generation capacity to 
offset the increased power demand forecasted for the ISO-NE regional 
transmission territory.
    A reasonable alternative to the proposed SPU would be to purchase 
power from other generators in the ISO-NE network. In 2008, generating 
capacity in ISO-NE consisted primarily of combined-cycle generators: 
Combined-cycle generated 37.8 percent of ISO-NE capacity; fossil--29.9 
percent; nuclear--13.6 percent; hydroelectric--10.4 percent; combustion 
turbine--7.4 percent; diesel--0.7 percent; and miscellaneous--0.2 
percent. This indicates that the majority of purchased power in the 
ISO-NE territory would likely be generated by a combined-cycle 
facility. Construction (if new generation is needed) and operation of a 
combined-cycle plant would create impacts in air quality, land use, and 
waste management significantly greater than those identified for the 
proposed SPU at Millstone 3. Millstone 3 does not emit sulfur dioxide, 
nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, or other atmospheric pollutants that 
are commonly associated with combined-cycle plants. Conservation 
programs such as demand-side management could feasibly replace the 
proposed SPU's additional power output. However, forecasted future 
energy demand in the ISO-NE territory may exceed conservation savings 
and still require additional generating capacity. Furthermore, the 
proposed SPU does not involve environmental impacts that are 
significantly different from those originally identified in the 1984 
Millstone FES for operation.

Alternative Use of Resources

    The action does not involve the use of any different resources than 
those previously considered in the ``Final Environmental Statement 
Related to the Operation of Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3,'' 
dated December 1984, or the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement 
for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants: Regarding Millstone Power 
Station, Units 2 and 3,'' dated July 2005.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on March 28, 2008, via 
electronic mail, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS) Accession No. ML080930624), the NRC staff consulted with the 
Connecticut State Official, Mr. Denny Galloway of the Department of 
Environmental Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the 
proposed action. The state official submitted the following comments 
via electronic mail, dated

[[Page 31898]]

March 31, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML080930624):

    1. Does the SPU change fuel heat-up estimates under accident 
conditions? If so, by how much and is there still an adequate margin 
of safety to ensure safe shutdown of the reactor?
    2. Are there any changes to possible off-site consequences from 
design basis accidents with the SPU that change current estimates on 
early or delayed health effects?
    3. Does the SPU negatively impact critical safety functions for 
the safe shutdown of the reactor?
    4. Is there sufficient safety injection with a margin of safety 
for the additional 239.0 MWt?

State of Connecticut Comment 1

    Does the SPU change fuel heat-up estimates under accident 
conditions? If so, by how much and is there still an adequate margin of 
safety to ensure safe shutdown of the reactor?

NRC Response to Comment 1

    This comment will be addressed in the NRC staff safety evaluation 
for the proposed power uprate.
    The proposed power uprate will result in operation of a higher 
energy core. The reactor fuel, however, will not change significantly. 
The changes to the fuel to implement the uprate include a slightly 
higher steady-state heat generation rate and a minor increase in stored 
energy in the fuel. Under accident conditions, the increase in stored 
energy will have an impact on predicted fuel centerline and cladding 
temperatures, but the NRC staff is reviewing these increases to ensure 
there will be sufficient margin to the applicable acceptance criteria, 
and an acceptable margin of safety.
    In the limiting accident scenario regarding peak fuel cladding 
temperature for the proposed power uprate, the large-break, loss-of-
coolant accident, the NRC staff is reviewing the analysis for the 
predicted peak cladding temperature to ensure it meets the acceptance 
criteria of 2,200 [deg]F.
    A postulated ejection of a rod cluster control assembly (control 
rod) is the limiting accident with respect to peak fuel temperature. 
The NRC staff is reviewing the analyses for the proposed power uprate 
to ensure the acceptance criterion for acceptable fuel temperatures is 
met for the specific Millstone Power Station, Unit 3 fuel design.
    Regarding the safe shutdown of the reactor, the NRC staff evaluates 
the shutdown of the reactor, and the shutdown capability for a reactor 
based on the functional capability of the control rods to insert into 
the core and shutdown the nuclear reactor. In the sense of this 
comment, however, we construe your question to be directed to the state 
of the reactor after a postulated accident. In this sense, the NRC 
staff is reviewing the licensee's analyses for the proposed power 
uprate amendment to ensure the acceptance criteria are met and that the 
core will remain in a coolable geometry following a postulated 
accident.

State of Connecticut Comment 2

    Are there any changes to possible off-site consequences from design 
basis accidents with the SPU that change current estimates on early or 
delayed health effects?

NRC Response to Comment 2

    See the Radiological Impacts section above.

State of Connecticut Comment 3

    Does the SPU negatively impact critical safety functions for the 
safe shutdown of the reactor?

NRC Response to Comment 3

    This comment will be addressed in the NRC staff safety evaluation 
for the proposed power uprate.
    The NRC staff is reviewing the functional design of the control rod 
drive system to ensure that the control rods will remain capable of 
inserting into the core and safely shutdown the reactor. The NRC staff 
is also reviewing the effects of a postulated accident that results 
from a failure of the control rod drive system to affect a safe 
shutdown. The NRC staff is reviewing the proposed power uprate 
amendment to ensure compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.62, 
``Requirements for reduction of risk from anticipated transients 
without scram (ATWS) events for light-water-cooled nuclear power 
plants.''

State of Connecticut Comment 4

    Is there sufficient safety injection with a margin of safety for 
the additional 239.0 MWt?

NRC Response to Comment 4

    This comment will be addressed in the NRC staff safety evaluation 
for the proposed power uprate.
    The NRC staff is reviewing the licensee's loss-of-coolant accident 
analyses, which model the capabilities of the safety injection systems 
at the proposed uprated power level.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined 
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated July 13, 2007, as supplemented on July 13, 
2007, September 12, 2007, November 19, 2007, December 13, 2007, 
December 17, 2007, January 10, 2008 (4 letters), January 11, 2008 (4 
letters), January 14, 2008, January 18, 2008 (5 letters), January 31, 
2008, February 25, 2008 (2 letters) March 5, 2008, March 10, 2008 (2 
letters), March 25, 2008, March 27, 2008, April 4, 2008, April 24, 
2008, April 29, 2008, May 15, 2008, and May 20, 2008. Publicly 
available records are accessible electronically via the Agencywide 
Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading 
Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the 
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, 
or by e-mail to [email protected]. Additionally, documents may be examined 
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852.

DATES: The comment period expires July 7, 2008. Comments received after 
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the 
Commission is only able to assure consideration of comments received on 
or before July 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Chief, Rules and Directives 
Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Mail Stop T-6D59, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Written comments may also 
be delivered to 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-6D59, Rockville, Maryland 
20852 from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of 
written comments received will be electronically available at the NRC's 
Public Electronic Reading Room link, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, on the NRC Web site or at the NRC's PDR located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland 20852. 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 at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, 
or by e-mail to [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC is considering issuance of an

[[Page 31899]]

amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49 issued to 
DNC for the operation of Millstone Power Station, Unit 3, located in 
New London County, Connecticut.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John G. Lamb, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O-8B1A, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at (301) 415-3100, 
or by e-mail at [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 29th day of May, 2008.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John G. Lamb,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of 
Operating Reactors, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-12454 Filed 6-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P