You are on page 1of 10

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.

157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2005 / Notices 48201

NUCLEAR REGULATORY proceeding and who wishes to consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
COMMISSION participate as a party in the proceeding which is available at the Commission’s
must file a written request for a hearing PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Biweekly Notice Applications and and a petition for leave to intervene. Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville
Amendments to Facility Operating Normally, the Commission will not Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Licenses Involving No Significant issue the amendment until the Publicly available records will be
Hazards Considerations expiration of 60 days after the date of accessible from the Agencywide
publication of this notice. The Documents Access and Management
I. Background Commission may issue the license System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the amendment before expiration of the 60- Reading Room on the Internet at the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended day period provided that its final NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory determination is that the amendment reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a
Commission (the Commission or NRC involves no significant hazards request for a hearing or petition for
staff) is publishing this regular biweekly consideration. In addition, the leave to intervene is filed within 60
notice. The Act requires the Commission may issue the amendment days, the Commission or a presiding
Commission publish notice of any prior to the expiration of the 30-day officer designated by the Commission or
amendments issued, or proposed to be comment period should circumstances by the Chief Administrative Judge of the
issued and grants the Commission the change during the 30-day comment Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
authority to issue and make period such that failure to act in a Panel, will rule on the request and/or
immediately effective any amendment timely way would result, for example in petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
to an operating license upon a derating or shutdown of the facility. Administrative Judge of the Atomic
determination by the Commission that Should the Commission take action Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
such amendment involves no significant prior to the expiration of either the notice of a hearing or an appropriate
hazards consideration, notwithstanding comment period or the notice period, it order.
the pendency before the Commission of will publish in the Federal Register a As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
a request for a hearing from any person. notice of issuance. Should the petition for leave to intervene shall set
This biweekly notice includes all Commission make a final No Significant forth with particularity the interest of
notices of amendments issued, or Hazards Consideration Determination, the petitioner in the proceeding, and
proposed to be issued from July 22, any hearing will take place after how that interest may be affected by the
2005, to August 4, 2005. The last issuance. The Commission expects that results of the proceeding. The petition
biweekly notice was published on the need to take this action will occur should specifically explain the reasons
August 2, 2005 (70 FR 44400). very infrequently. why intervention should be permitted
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Written comments may be submitted with particular reference to the
Amendments to Facility Operating by mail to the Chief, Rules and following general requirements: (1) The
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Directives Branch, Division of name, address, and telephone number of
Administrative Services, Office of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
Hazards Consideration Determination,
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
and Opportunity for a Hearing
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– right under the Act to be made a party
The Commission has made a 0001, and should cite the publication to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
proposed determination that the date and page number of this Federal extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
following amendment requests involve Register notice. Written comments may property, financial, or other interest in
no significant hazards consideration. also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two the proceeding; and (4) the possible
Under the Commission’s regulations in White Flint North, 11545 Rockville effect of any decision or order which
10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 may be entered in the proceeding on the
of the facility in accordance with the a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
proposed amendment would not (1) Copies of written comments received petition must also set forth the specific
involve a significant increase in the may be examined at the Commission’s contentions which the petitioner/
probability or consequences of an Public Document Room (PDR), located requestor seeks to have litigated at the
accident previously evaluated; or (2) at One White Flint North, Public File proceeding.
create the possibility of a new or Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first Each contention must consist of a
different kind of accident from any floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of specific statement of the issue of law or
accident previously evaluated; or (3) requests for a hearing and petitions for fact to be raised or controverted. In
involve a significant reduction in a leave to intervene is discussed below. addition, the petitioner/requestor shall
margin of safety. The basis for this Within 60 days after the date of provide a brief explanation of the bases
proposed determination for each publication of this notice, the licensee for the contention and a concise
amendment request is shown below. may file a request for a hearing with statement of the alleged facts or expert
The Commission is seeking public respect to issuance of the amendment to opinion which support the contention
comments on this proposed the subject facility operating license and and on which the petitioner/requestor
determination. Any comments received any person whose interest may be intends to rely in proving the contention
within 30 days after the date of affected by this proceeding and who at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor
publication of this notice will be wishes to participate as a party in the must also provide references to those
considered in making any final proceeding must file a written request specific sources and documents of
determination. Within 60 days after the for a hearing and a petition for leave to which the petitioner is aware and on
date of publication of this notice, the intervene. Requests for a hearing and a which the petitioner/requestor intends
licensee may file a request for a hearing petition for leave to intervene shall be to rely to establish those facts or expert
with respect to issuance of the filed in accordance with the opinion. The petition must include
amendment to the subject facility Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for sufficient information to show that a
operating license and any person whose Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 genuine dispute exists with the
interest may be affected by this CFR part 2. Interested persons should applicant on a material issue of law or

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Aug 15, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1
48202 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2005 / Notices

fact. Contentions shall be limited to mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy provide an accident mitigation function. As
matters within the scope of the of the request for hearing and petition such, the probability of occurrence for a
amendment under consideration. The for leave to intervene should also be previously analyzed accident is not impacted
by the change to the surveillance frequency
contention must be one which, if sent to the attorney for the licensee.
for these components. The consequences of
proven, would entitle the petitioner/ Nontimely requests and/or petitions a previously analyzed accident are
requestor to relief. A petitioner/ and contentions will not be entertained dependent on the initial conditions assumed
requestor who fails to satisfy these absent a determination by the for the analysis, the behavior of the fuel
requirements with respect to at least one Commission or the presiding officer of during the analyzed accident, the availability
contention will not be permitted to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of successful functioning of the equipment
participate as a party. that the petition, request and/or the assumed to operate in response to the
Those permitted to intervene become contentions should be granted based on analyzed event, and the setpoints at which
parties to the proceeding, subject to any a balancing of the factors specified in 10 these actions are initiated. No physical
limitations in the order granting leave to change to suppression chamber-to-drywell
CFR 2.309(a)(1)(I)–(viii). vacuum breakers is being made as a result of
intervene, and have the opportunity to For further details with respect to this the proposed change, nor does the change
participate fully in the conduct of the action, see the application for alter the manner in which the vacuum
hearing. amendment which is available for breakers operate. As a result, no new failure
If a hearing is requested, and the public inspection at the Commission’s modes of the suppression chamber-to-
Commission has not made a final PDR, located at One White Flint North, drywell vacuum breakers are being
determination on the issue of no Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville introduced. The proposed quarterly
significant hazards consideration, the Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. surveillance frequency for the suppression
Commission will make a final Publicly available records will be chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers is
determination on the issue of no consistent with the American Society of
accessible from the ADAMS Public
significant hazards consideration. The Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet frequency for testing these valves, will avoid
final determination will serve to decide at the NRC Web site, http:// unnecessary cycling and wear of the vacuum
when the hearing is held. If the final www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If breakers, and will improve the reliability of
determination is that the amendment you do not have access to ADAMS or if the vacuum breakers. Based on this
request involves no significant hazards there are problems in accessing the evaluation, there is no significant increase in
consideration, the Commission may documents located in ADAMS, contact the consequences of a previously analyzed
issue the amendment and make it the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397– event.
immediately effective, notwithstanding 4209, (301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to Therefore, the proposed change to the
the request for a hearing. Any hearing surveillance frequency for the suppression
pdr@nrc.gov.
held would take place after issuance of chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers does
the amendment. If the final Carolina Power & Light Company, not involve a significant increase in the
Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324, probability or consequences of an accident
determination is that the amendment
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 previously analyzed.
request involves a significant hazards 2. Does not create the possibility of a new
consideration, any hearing held would and 2, Brunswick County, North
or different type of accident from any
take place before the issuance of any Carolina accident previously evaluated.
amendment. Date of amendments request: June 20, The proposed change to the surveillance
A request for a hearing or a petition 2005. frequency for the suppression chamber-to-
for leave to intervene must be filed by: Description of amendments request: drywell vacuum breakers does not involve
(1) First class mail addressed to the The proposed change would revise the any physical alteration of plant systems,
Office of the Secretary of the Technical Specification Surveillance structures, or components. No new or
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory different equipment is being installed. No
Requirement 3.6.1.6.2 of 3.6.1.6, installed equipment is being operated in a
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– ‘‘Suppression Chamber-to-Drywell different manner. There is no alteration to the
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Vacuum Breakers’’ for the frequency of parameters within which the plant is
Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express functionally testing the suppression normally operated or in the setpoints that
mail, and expedited delivery services: chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers. initiate protective or mitigative actions. As a
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, Basis for proposed no significant result no new failure modes are being
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville hazards consideration determination: introduced. Therefore, the proposed change
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the to the surveillance frequency for the
Attention: Rulemaking and licensee has provided its analysis of the suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail issue of no significant hazards breakers does not create the possibility of a
addressed to the Office of the Secretary, new or different kind of accident from any
consideration, which is presented accident previously evaluated.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, below: 3. Does not involve a significant reduction
HearingDocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile
1. Does not involve a significant increase in the margin of safety.
transmission addressed to the Office of in the probability or consequences of an The proposed change revises SR 3.6.1.6.2
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory accident previously evaluated. to require performance of functional testing
Commission, Washington, DC, The proposed change revises Surveillance of each vacuum breaker every 92 days,
Attention: Rulemakings and Requirement [SR] 3.6.1.6.2 to require within 12 hours after any discharge of the
Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101, performance of functional testing of each steam to the suppression chamber from the
verification number is (301) 415–1966. suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum safety/relief valves, and within 12 hours
A copy of the request for hearing and breaker every 92 days, within 12 hours after following an operation that causes any of the
petition for leave to intervene should any discharge of steam to the suppression vacuum breakers to open. The operability
also be sent to the Office of the General chamber from the safety/relief valves, and and functional characteristics of the
within 12 hours following an operation that suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory causes any of the vacuum breakers to open. breakers remains unchanged. The margin of
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– The proposed change does not involve safety is established through the design of the
0001, and it is requested that copies be physical changes to any plant structure, plant structures, systems, and components,
transmitted either by means of facsimile system, or component. The suppression through the parameters within which the
transmission to (301) 415–3725 or by e- chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers only plant is operated, through the establishment

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Aug 15, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2005 / Notices 48203

of the setpoints for the actuation of 3.6.1.3.11 and the increase in the total Main pertinent design basis accident have been
equipment relied upon to respond to an Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) leakage rate found to remain within the regulatory limits.
event, and through the margins contained limit have been evaluated in a revision to the The change continues to ensure that the
within the safety analyses. The proposed analysis of the Loss of Coolant Accident doses at the exclusion area and low
change to the surveillance frequency for the (LOCA). Based on the results of the analysis, population zone boundaries, as well as the
suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum it has been demonstrated that, with the control room, are within the corresponding
breakers does not impact the condition or requested change, the dose consequences of regulatory limits. Therefore, the proposed
performance of structures, systems, setpoints, this limiting Design Basis Accident (DBA) are change will not involve a significant
and components relied upon for accident within the regulatory guidance provided by reduction in a margin of safety.
mitigation. As previously noted, the the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] The NRC staff proposes to determine
proposed quarterly surveillance frequency for for use with the AST [alternative source
the suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum term]. This guidance is presented in 10 CFR
that the amendment request involves no
breakers is consistent with the ASME Code 50.67, Regulatory Guide 1.183, ’’Alternative significant hazards consideration.
for frequency for testing these vacuum Radiological Source Terms For Evaluating Attorney for licensee: David G.
breakers, will avoid unnecessary cycling and Design Basis Accidents At Nuclear Power Pettinari, Legal Department, 688 WCB,
wear of the vacuum breakers, and will Reactors,’’ and Standard Review Plan (SRP) Detroit Edison Company, 2000 2nd
improve the reliability of the vacuum Section 15.0.1. The proposed change also Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226–1279.
breakers. The proposed change does not updates the design basis value for the Control NRC Section Chief: L. Raghavan.
impact any safety analysis assumptions or Room Envelope (CRE) unfiltered inleakage
results. Therefore, the proposed change does based on actual test results. This is Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
not result in a significant reduction in the acceptable because the assumed value in the Docket Nos. 50–247 and 50–286, Indian
margin of safety. analysis is more than three times the worst Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2
The NRC staff has reviewed the case test value. The proposed change does and 3, Westchester County, New York
not affect the normal design or operation of
licensee’s analysis and, based on this Date of amendment request: June 8,
the facility before the accident; rather, it
review, it appears that the three affects leakage limit assumptions that 2005.
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are constitute inputs to the evaluation of the Description of amendment request:
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff consequences. The radiological consequences The proposed change allows a delay
proposes to determine that the of the analyzed LOCA have been evaluated time for entering a supported system
amendment request involves no using the plant licensing basis for this Technical Specification (TS) when the
significant hazards consideration. accident. The results conclude that the inoperability is due solely to an
Attorney for licensee: David T. control room and offsite doses remain within inoperable snubber, if risk is assessed
Conley, Associate General Counsel II— applicable regulatory limits. Therefore, the and managed consistent with the
proposed change does not involve a program in place for complying with the
Legal Department, Progress Energy
significant increase in the probability or requirements of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4).
Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box consequences of an accident previously
1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. evaluated.
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
NRC Section Chief: Michael L. 2. The proposed change does not create the 3.0.8 is added to the TS to provide this
Marshall, Jr. possibility of a new or different kind of allowance and define the requirements
accident from any accident previously and limitations for its use.
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. This change was proposed by the
evaluated.
50–341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, The change in leakage limits does not industry’s Technical Specification Task
Michigan affect the design, functional performance or Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF–
Date of amendment request: June 29, normal operation of the facility. Similarly, it 372, Revision 4. The NRC staff issued a
2005. does not affect the design or operation of any notice of opportunity for comment in
Description of amendment request: component in the facility such that new the Federal Register on November 24,
The proposed amendment would revise equipment failure modes are created. As such
the proposed change will not create the
2004 (69 FR 68412), on possible
Technical Specifications (TS) to revise possibility of a new or different kind of amendments concerning TSTF–372,
Surveillance Requirements (SR) accident from any accident previously including a model safety evaluation and
3.6.1.3.11 and 3.6.1.3.12 in TS 3.6.1.3, evaluated. model no significant hazards
‘‘Primary Containment Isolation Valves 3. The proposed change does not involve consideration (NSHC) determination,
(PCIVs).’’ Specifically, the proposed a significant reduction in the margin of using the consolidated line item
amendment would revise the combined safety. improvement process. The NRC staff
secondary containment bypass leakage This proposed license amendment involves subsequently issued a notice of
rate limit for all bypass leakage paths in changes in leakage rate limits for the availability of the models for referencing
SR 3.6.1.3.11 from 0.05 to 0.10 La and secondary containment bypass leakage and
MSIV leakage. The revised leakage rate limits
in license amendment applications in
the combined main steam isolation are used in the LOCA radiological analysis in the Federal Register on May 4, 2005 (70
valve (MSIV) leakage rate limit for all conjunction with the revised CRE unfiltered FR 23252). The licensee affirmed the
four main steam lines in SR 3.6.1.3.12 inleakage limit. The analysis has been applicability of the following NSHC
from 150 to 250 standard cubic feet per performed using conservative methodologies. determination in its application dated
hour (scfh). Safety margins and analytical conservatisms June 8, 2005.
Basis for proposed no significant have been evaluated and have been found Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination: acceptable. The analyzed LOCA event has hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an been carefully selected and margin has been As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an
analysis of the issue of no significant retained to ensure that the analysis
analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration is presented adequately bounds postulated event scenario.
The dose consequences of this limiting event hazards consideration is presented
below: are within the acceptance criteria presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve in 10 CFR 50.67, Regulatory Guide 1.183 and Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does
a significant increase in the probability or SRP Section 15.0.1. The margin of safety is Not Involve a Significant Increase in the
consequences of an accident previously that provided by meeting the applicable Probability or Consequences of an Accident
evaluated. regulatory limits. The effect of the revision to Previously Evaluated.
The increase in the allowed secondary the Technical Specification requirements has The proposed change allows a delay time
containment bypass leakage limit in SR been analyzed and doses resulting from the for entering a supported system TS when the

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Aug 15, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1
48204 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2005 / Notices

inoperability is due solely to an inoperable Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton while relying on required actions as allowed
snubber if risk is assessed and managed. The Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. by proposed LCO 3.0.4, are no different than
postulated seismic event requiring snubbers NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer. the consequences of an accident while
is a low-probability occurrence and the entering and relying on the required actions
overall TS system safety function would still Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., while starting in a condition of applicability
be available for the vast majority of Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick of the TS. Therefore, the consequences of an
anticipated challenges. Therefore, the Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, accident previously evaluated are not
probability of an accident previously New York significantly affected by this change. The
evaluated is not significantly increased, if at addition of a requirement to assess and
all. The consequences of an accident while Date of amendment request: May 31, manage the risk introduced by this change
relying on allowance provided by proposed 2005. will further minimize possible concerns.
LCO 3.0.8 are no different than the Description of amendment request: Therefore, this change does not involve a
consequences of an accident while relying on The proposed change allows entry into significant increase in the probability or
the TS required actions in effect without the a mode or other specified condition in consequences of an accident previously
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.8. evaluated.
the applicability of a Technical
Therefore, the consequences of an accident Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does
previously evaluated are not significantly Specification (TS), while in a condition Not Create the Possibility of a New or
affected by this change. The addition of a statement and the associated required Different Kind of Accident from any
requirement to assess and manage the risk actions of the TS, provided the licensee Previously Evaluated.
introduced by this change will further performs a risk assessment and manages The proposed change does not involve a
minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this risk consistent with the program in physical alteration of the plant (no new or
change does not involve a significant place for complying with the different type of equipment will be installed).
increase in the probability or consequences requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Entering into a mode or other specified
of an accident previously evaluated. condition in the applicability of a TS, while
Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 50, in a TS condition statement and the
Not Create the Possibility of a New or section 50.65(a)(4). Limiting Condition associated required actions of the TS, will
Different Kind of Accident from any for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4 exceptions in not introduce new failure modes or effects
Previously Evaluated. individual TSs would be eliminated, and will not, in the absence of other
The proposed change does not involve a several notes or specific exceptions are unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose
physical alteration of the plant (no new or revised to reflect the related changes to consequences exceed the consequences of
different type of equipment will be installed). LCO 3.0.4, and Surveillance accidents previously evaluated. The addition
Allowing delay times for entering supported of a requirement to assess and manage the
Requirement (SR) 3.0.4 is revised to risk introduced by this change will further
system TS when inoperability is due solely
to inoperable snubbers, if risk is assessed and reflect the LCO 3.0.4 allowance. minimize possible concerns. Thus, this
managed, will not introduce new failure This change was proposed by the change does not create the possibility of a
modes or effects and will not, in the absence industry’s Technical Specification Task new or different kind of accident from an
of other unrelated failures, lead to an Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF– accident previously evaluated.
accident whose consequences exceed the 359. The NRC staff issued a notice of Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does
consequences of accidents previously opportunity for comment in the Federal Not Involve a Significant Reduction in a
evaluated. The addition of a requirement to Register on August 2, 2002 (67 FR Margin of Safety.
assess and manage the risk introduced by this The proposed change allows entry into a
50475), on possible amendments mode or other specified condition in the
change will further minimize possible
concerning TSTF–359, including a applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition
concerns. Thus, this change does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of model safety evaluation and model no statement and the associated required actions
accident from an accident previously significant hazards consideration of the TS. The TS allow operation of the
evaluated. (NSHC) determination, using the plant without the full complement of
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does consolidated line item improvement equipment through the conditions for not
Not Involve a Significant Reduction in a process. The NRC staff subsequently meeting the TS LCO. The risk associated with
Margin of Safety. issued a notice of availability of the this allowance is managed by the imposition
The proposed change allows a delay time of required actions that must be performed
models for referencing in license within the prescribed completion times. The
for entering a supported system TS when the amendment applications in the Federal
inoperability is due solely to an inoperable net effect of being in a TS condition on the
snubber, if risk is assessed and managed. The Register on April 4, 2003 (68 FR 16579). margin of safety is not considered significant.
postulated seismic event requiring snubbers The licensee affirmed the applicability The proposed change does not alter the
is a low-probability occurrence and the of the following NSHC determination in required actions or completion times of the
overall TS system safety function would still its application dated May 31, 2005. TS. The proposed change allows TS
be available for the vast majority of Basis for proposed no significant conditions to be entered, and the associated
anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the hazards consideration determination: required actions and completion times to be
proposed TS changes was assessed following used in new circumstances. This use is
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an
the three-tiered approach recommended in predicated upon the licensee’s performance
analysis of the issue of no significant of a risk assessment and the management of
Regulatory Guide 1.177. A bounding risk
hazards consideration is presented plant risk. The change also eliminates current
assessment was performed to justify the
proposed TS changes. The proposed LCO below: allowances for utilizing required actions and
3.0.8 defines limitations on the use of the Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does completion times in similar circumstances,
provision and includes a requirement for the Not Involve a Significant Increase in the without assessing and managing risk. The net
licensee to assess and manage the risk Probability or Consequences of an Accident change to the margin of safety is
associated with operation with an inoperable Previously Evaluated. insignificant. Therefore, this change does not
snubber. The net change to the margin of The proposed change allows entry into a involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change mode or other specified condition in the safety.
does not involve a significant reduction in a applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition The NRC staff proposes to determine
margin of safety. statement and the associated required actions that the amendment request involves no
of the TS. Being in a TS condition and the
The NRC staff proposes to determine associated required actions is not an initiator
significant hazards consideration.
that the amendment request involves no of any accident previously evaluated. Attorney for licensee: Mr. John Fulton,
significant hazards consideration. Therefore, the probability of an accident Assistant General Counsel, Entergy
Attorney for licensee: Mr. John Fulton, previously evaluated is not significantly Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton
Assistant General Counsel, Entergy increased. The consequences of an accident Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Aug 15, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2005 / Notices 48205

NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer. during operation and will continue to be the proposed change does not create the
tested as required in accordance with TS 3/ possibility of a new or different kind of
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 4.13, Inservice Code Testing. The proposed accident from any accident previously
Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear change deletes an administrative requirement evaluated.
Power Station, Plymouth County, that is adequately addressed by following GL 3. Does the proposed change involve a
Massachusetts 91–18, Rev. 1. Deletion of an administrative significant reduction in a margin of safety?
requirement does not reduce the margin of Response: No. The ability of the MSIVs to
Date of amendment request: May 24, safety. Therefore, the proposed change does perform their safety function is tested during
2005. not involve a significant reduction in a the MSIV full stroke fast closure test in
Description of amendment request: margin of safety. accordance with TS 3.13, Inservice Testing
The proposed amendment would delete Program. The proposed change deletes a
The NRC staff has reviewed the
the Technical Specification (TS) high-risk surveillance. Deletion of the high-
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
temperature limit for the safety relief risk surveillance does not reduce the margin
review, it appears that the three of safety. Therefore, the proposed change
valve (SRV) discharge pipe and the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are does not involve a significant reduction in a
requirements for NRC approval of the
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff margin of safety.
associated engineering evaluation.
Basis for proposed no significant proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no The NRC staff has reviewed the
hazards consideration determination: licensee’s analysis and, based on this
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: J. M. Fulton, review, it appears that the three
licensee has provided its analysis of the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
Esquire, Assistant General Counsel,
issue of no significant hazards satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, 600
consideration, which is presented proposes to determine that the
Rocky Hill Road, Plymouth,
below: amendment request involves no
Massachusetts, 02360–5599.
1. Does the proposed change involve a NRC Section Chief: Darrell Roberts. significant hazards consideration.
significant increase in the probability or Attorney for licensee: J. M. Fulton,
consequences of an accident previously Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Esquire, Assistant General Counsel,
evaluated? Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, 600
Response: No. This proposed change Power Station, Plymouth County, Rocky Hill Road, Plymouth,
deletes an administrative requirement for Massachusetts
NRC approval of an engineering evaluation to
Massachusetts, 02360–5599.
resolve a non-conforming and degraded Date of amendment request: May 24, NRC Section Chief: Darrell Roberts.
condition that is required by NRC Generic 2005. Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Letter 91–18 (GL), Rev. 1, ‘‘Information to Description of amendment request: Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle
Licensees Regarding NRC Inspection Manual The proposed amendment would delete
Section on Resolution of Degraded and County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle
the main steam isolation valve (MSIV) County, Illinois
Nonconforming Conditions’’. The SRVs will twice per week partial stroke testing
be maintained operable, inspected, and Date of amendment request: March 7,
surveillance specified in Technical
tested to perform their safety function as 2005.
required by the current Specifications and specification (TS) 4.7.A.2.b.1.c.
any SRV non-conforming or degraded Basis for proposed no significant Description of amendment request:
condition will be addressed in accordance hazards consideration determination: The proposed amendment request will
with GL 91–18. The proposed change also As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the add two NRC approved topical report
deletes a Note regarding installed two-stage licensee has provided its analysis of the references to the list of analytical
Target Rock SRVs. The deletion of an issue of no significant hazards methods in Technical Specification
administrative requirement and the Note consideration, which is presented 5.6.5, ‘‘Core Operating Limits Report
does not change the plant response to the below: (COLR),’’ that can be used to determine
design basis accident and does not increase core operating limits. The proposed
the probability of inadvertent SRV operation. 1. Does the proposed change involve a
Therefore, the proposed change does not significant increase in the probability or changes are:
significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously 1. Add a NRC previously approved
consequences of any previously evaluated evaluated? Siemans Power Corporation (SPC) topical
accidents. Response: No. This proposed change report reference for determination of fuel
2. Does the proposed change create the deletes the requirement to exercise the assembly critical power for previously loaded
possibility of a new or different kind of MSIV’s twice per week at power. The MSIVs Global Nuclear Fuel (GNNF) GE14 fuel which
accident from any accident previously will continue to be full stroke tested by the will be co-resident with reloaded Framatome
evaluated? Inservice Testing Program. The MSIVs will ANP ATRIUM–10 fuel.
Response: No. The safety function of the continue to be able to perform their accident 2. Add a NRC previously approved
SRVs is to provide over-pressure protection mitigation function. The plant response to Framatome Advanced Nuclear Power, Inc.
of the primary coolant pressure boundary the design basis accident will not change and (FRA–ANP) topical report reference for an
and also for the automatic functions to the probability of inadvertent MSIV closure uprated methodology for evaluation of loss
rapidly depressurize the primary system to a will not be increased. Therefore, the coolant accident (LOCA) conditions.
pressure at which low-pressure cooling proposed change does not significantly
systems can provide makeup. The proposed increase the probability or consequences of The proposed changes are the result
change deletes an administrative requirement any previously evaluated accidents. of a redesign to untilize Framatome
and a Note related to installed two-stage 2. Does the proposed change create the ANP ATRIUM–10 fuel during the Unit
Target Rock SRVs, and does not introduce possibility of a new or different kind of 1 Refueling Outage 11 currently
any new modes of equipment operation or accident from any accident previously scheduled for February 2006.
failure. Therefore, the proposed change does evaluated? Basis for proposed no significant
not create the possibility of a new or different Response: No. The safety function of the hazards consideration determination:
kind of accident from any accident MSIVs is to isolate the main steam lines in
previously evaluated. case of design basis accidents to limit the loss
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
3. Does the proposed change involve a of reactor coolant and/or limit the release of licensee has provided its analysis of the
significant reduction in a margin of safety? radioactive materials. The proposed change issue of no significant hazards
Response: No. The ability of the SRVs to does not introduce any new modes of consideration, which is presented
perform their safety function is maintained equipment operation or failure. Therefore, below:

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Aug 15, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1
48206 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2005 / Notices

Criterion 1—Does the proposed change been analyzed with NRC approved thermal power level for enabling the
involve a significant increase in the methodologies, will not affect the control OPRMs for Cycle 10 became > 27.2
probability or consequences of an accident parameters governing unit operation or the percent rated thermal power. Since the
previously evaluated? response of plant equipment to transient
conditions. The proposed changes do not
current TS SR requirement is > 28.6
Response: No.
The proposed changes will add two introduce any new modes of system percent, the new TS SR thermal power
additional NRC approved topical report operation or failure mechanism. level value is considered a non-
references to the list of administratively Therefore, the proposed changes do not conservative TS. The Perry Nuclear
controlled analytical methods in Technical create the possibility of a new or different Power Plant (PNPP) is currently
Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ‘‘Core Operating kind of accident from any previously requiring the OPRMs to be enabled at ≥
Limits Report (COLR),’’ that can be used to evaluated. 23.8 percent thermal power level
determine core operating limits. TS 5.6.5 lists Criterion 3—Do the proposed changes
through administrative controls. These
NRC approved analytical methods used at involve a significant reduction in the margin
of safety. controls will remain in place until such
LaSalle County Station (LSCS) to determine
core operating limits. Response: No. time that this license amendment is
LSCS Unit 1 is scheduled to reload The proposed changes will add two approved (reference NRC
Framatome ANP ATRIUM–10 fuel during the additional references to the list of Administrative Letter 98–10,
Unit 1 Refueling Outage 11currently administratively controlled analytical ‘‘Dispositioning of Technical
scheduled for February 2006. The proposed methods in TS 5.6.5 that can be used to Specifications That Are Insufficient to
changes to TS Section 5.6.5 will add FRA- determine core operating limits. The Assure Plant Safety,’’ dated December
ANP methodologies to determine overall core proposed changes do not modify the safety 12, 1998).
operating limits for future core limits or setpoints at which protective
Basis for proposed no significant
configurations. This change will require the actions are initiated and do not change the
requirements governing operation or hazards consideration determination:
listing of additional analytical methods for
evaluating LOCA conditions and determining availability of safety equipment assumed to As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
the critical power performance of the GE14 operate to preserve the margin of safety. licensee has provided its analysis of the
fuel. Thus, the proposed changes will allow Therefore, LSCS has determined that the issue of no significant hazards
LSCS to use the most recent FRA-ANP LOCA proposed changes provide an equivalent consideration which is presented below:
methodology for evaluation of ATRIUM–10 level of protection as that currently provided.
1. The proposed change does not involve
fuel and SPC critical power correlations to Therefore, the proposed changes do not
a significant increase in the probability or
determine the critical power for the GE14 involve a significant reduction in a margin of
consequences of an accident previously
fuel. safety.
evaluated.
The addition of approved methods to TS The NRC staff has reviewed the The proposed change involves the use of
Section 5.6.5 has no effect on any accident licensee’s analysis and, based on this a revised thermal power level to establish the
initiator or precursor previously evaluated OPRM enabled region. The OPRM enabled
review, it appears that the three
and does not change the manner in which the region is that area on the power to flow map
core is operated. The methods have been standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff where the OPRM System is activated to
reviewed to ensure that the output accurately detect and suppress potential instability
models predicted core behavior, have no proposes to determine that the events. If reactor operations result in
effect on the type or amount of radiation requested amendments involve no entrance into this region and a core
released, and have no effect on predicted significant hazards consideration. instability is detected, the OPRM System will
offsite doses in the event of an accident. Attorney for licensee: Mr. Thomas S. automatically initiate a reactor scram. The
Additionally the methods do not change any O’Neill, Associate General Counsel, revised enabled region provides assurance
key core parameters that influence any Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 that the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix
accident consequences. Thus, the proposed Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. A, General Design Criteria 10 and 12 remain
changes do not have any effect on the NRC Section Chief: Gene Y. Suh. satisfied for current and future core designs.
probability of an accident previously Though the initiation of instability events are
evaluated. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating dependent upon thermal power levels and
The methodology conservatively Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry core flows, the revision to the enabled region
establishes acceptable core operating limits Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Lake thermal power level value does not increase
such that the consequences of previously County, Ohio the possibility of such an event. Once the
analyzed events are not significantly OPRMs are enabled, the OPRM System
increased. Date of amendment request: July 5, would still mitigate an instability event, if
The proposed changes in the 2005. detected. The revised enabled region does
administratively controlled analytical Description of amendment request: not impact any OPRM detection or mitigation
methods do not affect the ability of LSCS to The proposed amendment would actions for instability events.
successfully respond to previously evaluated modify the existing Technical The OPRMs are designed to detect and
accidents and does not affect radiological Specification (TS) 3.3.1.3, ‘‘Oscillation suppress potential instability events. As
assumptions used in the evaluations. Thus, Power Range Monitor (OPRM) such, the OPRMs are not credited to provide
the radiological consequences of any any type of detection or mitigation actions for
accident previously evaluated are not
Instrumentation,’’ Surveillance transients or accidents described within the
increased. Requirement (SR) 3.3.1.3.5. Specifically, PNPP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
Therefore, the proposed changes do not the thermal power level at which the (USAR) other than instability events. Hence,
involve a significant increase in the OPRMs are ‘‘not bypassed’’ (enabled to revising the OPRMs enabled region will not
probability or consequences of an accident perform their design function) will be impact the transients or accidents described
previously evaluated. changed from > 28.6 percent rated within the PNPP Updated Safety Analysis
Criterion 2—Does the proposed change thermal power to ≥ 23.8 percent rated Report (USAR) other than instability events.
create the possibility of a new or different thermal power. Since the OPRMs will be enabled at a
kind of accident from any previously Plant-specific stability calculations thermal power lower than analytically
evaluated? are now required as part of the required, the potential for additional scrams
Response: No. exists. However, since the possibility of an
The proposed changes involve TS 5.6.5 do
resolution to several generic issues instability event occurring in the range
not affect the performance of any LSCS associated with OPRM operability. One between the revised thermal power level and
structure, system, or component credited of the outcomes from this resolution the analytical value is remote, the probability
with mitigating any accident previously was a change in the OPRM enabled of an additional scram from occurring is not
evaluated. The insertion of fuel, which has region of the power to flow map. The significantly increased.

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Aug 15, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2005 / Notices 48207

Therefore, since no significant changes are Southern Nuclear Operating Company, increased. The consequences of an accident
being made to the plant or its design, the Inc., Georgia Power Company, while relying on required actions as allowed
probability or the consequences of an Oglethorpe Power Corporation, by proposed LCO 3.0.4, are no different than
accident have not increased over those the consequences of an accident while
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
previously evaluated. entering and relying on the required actions
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– while starting in a condition of applicability
2. The proposed change does not create the 321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear
possibility of a new or different kind of of the TS. Therefore, the consequences of an
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, accident previously evaluated are not
accident from any accident previously
Georgia significantly affected by this change. The
evaluated.
Date of amendment request: May 25, addition of a requirement to assess and
The proposed change involves the use of
manage the risk introduced by this change
a revised thermal power level to establish the 2005. will further minimize possible concerns.
OPRM enabled region. The use of a revised Description of amendment request: Therefore, this change does not involve a
thermal power level to establish the OPRM The proposed change allows entry into significant increase in the probability or
enabled region does not involve a physical a mode or other specified condition in consequences of an accident previously
modification to any plant system or the applicability of a Technical evaluated.
component, including the fuel. The revised Specification (TS), while in a condition Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does
enabled region provides assurance that the statement and the associated required Not Create the Possibility of a New or
requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix A, actions of the TS, provided the licensee Different Kind of Accident from any
General Design Criteria 10 and 12 remain performs a risk assessment and manages Previously Evaluated.
satisfied for current and future core designs. risk consistent with the program in The proposed change does not involve a
Though the initiation of instability events are physical alteration of the plant (no new or
place for complying with the different type of equipment will be installed).
dependent upon thermal power levels and requirements of Title 10 of the Code of
core flows, the revision to the enabled region Entering into a mode or other specified
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 50, condition in the applicability of a TS, while
thermal power level value does not increase
section 50.65(a)(4). Limiting Condition in a TS condition statement and the
the possibility of such an event, or introduce
any new or different events. Once the OPRMs
for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4 exceptions in associated required actions of the TS, will
individual TSs would be eliminated, not introduce new failure modes or effects
are enabled, the OPRM System detects and
several notes or specific exceptions are and will not, in the absence of other
mitigates an instability event if detected. The
revised to reflect the related changes to unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose
revised enabled region does not impact any consequences exceed the consequences of
mitigation actions. LCO 3.0.4, and Surveillance
accidents previously evaluated. The addition
Therefore, the proposed change does not Requirement (SR) 3.0.4 is revised to of a requirement to assess and manage the
create the possibility of a new or different reflect the LCO 3.0.4 allowance. risk introduced by this change will further
kind of accident from any accident This change was proposed by the minimize possible concerns. Thus, this
previously evaluated. industry’s Technical Specification Task change does not create the possibility of a
3. The proposed change does not involve Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF– new or different kind of accident from an
a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 359. The NRC staff issued a notice of accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change involves the use of opportunity for comment in the Federal Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does
a revised thermal power level to establish the Register on August 2, 2002 (67 FR Not Involve a Significant Reduction in a
OPRM enabled region. Once the OPRMs are 50475), on possible amendments Margin of Safety.
enabled, the OPRM System mitigates an The proposed change allows entry into a
concerning TSTF–359, including a
instability event if detected. The revised mode or other specified condition in the
model safety evaluation and model no applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition
enabled region does not impact any
significant hazards consideration statement and the associated required actions
mitigation actions. The use of a revised
(NSHC) determination, using the of the TS. The TS allow operation of the
thermal power level to establish the OPRM
enabled region does not involve a physical consolidated line item improvement plant without the full complement of
modification to any plant system or process. The NRC staff subsequently equipment through the conditions for not
component, including the fuel. The revised issued a notice of availability of the meeting the TS LCO. The risk associated with
models for referencing in license this allowance is managed by the imposition
enabled region provides assurance that the
amendment applications in the Federal of required actions that must be performed
requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix A,
within the prescribed completion times. The
General Design Criteria 10 and 12 remain Register on April 4, 2003 (68 FR 16579).
net effect of being in a TS condition on the
satisfied for current and future core designs. The licensee affirmed the applicability margin of safety is not considered significant.
The revised enabled region restores the of the following NSHC determination in The proposed change does not alter the
margin of protection provided by the OPRMs, its application dated May 25, 2005. required actions or completion times of the
which had been reduced as fuel and core Basis for proposed no significant TS. The proposed change allows TS
designs have evolved since 1994. Therefore, hazards consideration determination: conditions to be entered, and the associated
the proposed change does not involve a As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an required actions and completion times to be
significant reduction in a margin of safety. analysis of the issue of no significant used in new circumstances. This use is
hazards consideration is presented predicated upon the licensee’s performance
The NRC staff has reviewed the of a risk assessment and the management of
below:
licensee’s analysis and, based on this plant risk. The change also eliminates current
review, it appears that the three Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does allowances for utilizing required actions and
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Not Involve a Significant Increase in the completion times in similar circumstances,
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Probability or Consequences of an Accident without assessing and managing risk. The net
Previously Evaluated. change to the margin of safety is
proposes to determine that the The proposed change allows entry into a
amendment request involves no insignificant. Therefore, this change does not
mode or other specified condition in the involve a significant reduction in a margin of
significant hazards consideration. applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition safety.
Attorney for licensee: David W. statement and the associated required actions
of the TS. Being in a TS condition and the The NRC staff proposes to determine
Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy that the amendment request involves no
Corporation, 76 South Main Street, associated required actions is not an initiator
of any accident previously evaluated. significant hazards consideration.
Akron, OH 44308. Therefore, the probability of an accident Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake,
NRC Section Chief: Gene Y. Suh. previously evaluated is not significantly Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Aug 15, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1
48208 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2005 / Notices

Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., radiological consequences of accidents Description of amendment request:
Washington, DC 20037. postulated in the UFSAR [Updated Final The proposed changes to the Technical
NRC Section Chief: Evangelos C. Safety Analysis Report]. Therefore, neither Specifications (TS) would correct two
Marinos. the probability of occurrence nor the
consequences of any accident previously
errors in the units of measure used to
Virginia Electric and Power Company, evaluated is significantly increased. determine the Overtemperature DT
Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North 2. The possibility for a new or different Function Allowable Value.
type of accident from any accident Basis for proposed no significant
Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and
previously evaluated is not created. hazards consideration determination:
No. 2, Louisa County, Virginia The use of VIPRE–D/BWU and its As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
Date of amendment request: July 5, applicable fuel design limits for DNBR does licensee has provided its analysis of the
2005. not impact any of the applicable design issue of no significant hazards
Description of amendment request: criteria and all pertinent licensing basis
criteria will continue to be met.
consideration, which is presented
The proposed changes to the Technical below:
Demonstrated adherence to these standards
Specifications (TS) would add a
and criteria precludes new challenges to 1. Do changes involve a significant increase
reference in TS 5.65.b, ‘‘Core Operating components and systems that could in the probability or consequences of an
Limits Report (COLR),’’ to permit the introduce a new type of accident. Setpoint accident previously evaluated?
use of an alternate methodology, safety analysis evaluations have The proposed changes do not significantly
VIPRE–D/BWU code/correlation demonstrated that the use of VIPRE–D/BWU increase the probability or consequences of
(Virginia Electric and Power Company is acceptable. All design and performance an accident previously evaluated in the
version of the Electric Power Research criteria will continue to be met and no new UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis
Institute (EPRI) computer code VIPRE single failure mechanisms will be created. Report]. The proposed changes correct errors
The use of VIPRE–D/BWU code/correlation in the unit designations used in the f1(DI)
[Versatile Internals and Components or the Statistical DNBR Evaluation equation. The actual numerical values of
Program for Reactors—EPRI] with the Methodology does not involve any alteration f1(DI) calculated by the equation remain the
BWU Critical Heat Flux (CHF) to plant equipment or procedures that would same, only the units applied to the value are
correlations), to perform thermal- introduce any new or unique operational changed. The Overtemperature DT function
hydraulic analysis to predict CHF and modes or accident precursors. Therefore, the allowable values are utilized by the Reactor
Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio possibility for a new or different kind of Trip System (RTS) instrumentation to
(DNBR) for the AREVA Advanced Mark- accident from any accident previously prevent reactor operation in conditions
BW (AMBW) fuel in the North Anna evaluated is not created. outside the range considered for accident
3. The margin of safety is not significantly analyses. The proposed changes will not alter
cores.
reduced. North Anna Technical Specification the allowable values used by the RTS
Basis for proposed no significant 2.1 specifies that any DNBR limit Established instrumentation. The Overtemperature DT
hazards consideration determination: by any used code/correlation must provide at allowable value is not an initiator to any
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the least 95% non-DNB probability at a 95% accident previously evaluated. As a result,
licensee has provided its analysis of the confidence level. The use of VIPRE–D/BWU the probability of any accident previously
issue of no significant hazards with the SDLs [Statistical Design Limits] evaluated is not significantly increased. As
consideration, which is presented listed in this package provides that the Overtemperature DT allowable value is
below: protection, just as LYNXT/BWU [LYNXT not changed, the probability or consequences
thermal-hydraulic computer code with the of an accident previously evaluated is not
1. The probability of occurrence or the AREVA BWU CHF correlations] and significantly increased.
consequences of an accident previously applicable SDLs did. The required DNBR 2. Do changes create the possibility of a
evaluated are not significantly increased. margin of safety for the North Anna Nuclear new or different kind of accident from any
Neither the code/CHF correlation pair nor units, which in this case is the margin accident previously evaluated?
the Statistical DNBR Evaluation Methodology between the 95/95 DNBR limit and clad The proposed changes do not create the
make any contribution to the potential failure, is therefore not reduced. Therefore, possibility of a new or different kind of
accident initiators and thus cannot increase the margin of safety as defined in the Bases accident from any accident already evaluated
the probability of any accident. Further, since to the North Anna Units 1 and 2 Technical in the UFSAR. The proposed changes correct
both the deterministic and statistical DNBR Specifications is not significantly reduced. errors in the unit designations used in the
limits meet the required design basis of f1(DI) equation. Changes do not introduce a
avoiding DNB with 95% probability at a 95% The NRC staff has reviewed the
new mode of plant operation and do not
confidence level, the use of the new code/ licensee’s analysis and, based on this
involve any physical modifications to the
correlation and Statistical DNBR Evaluation review, it appears that the three plant. The changes will not introduce new
Methodology do not increase the potential standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. accident initiators. Therefore, the proposed
consequences of any accident. Finally the Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to changes do not create the possibility of a new
addition of a full core DNB design limit determine that the amendment request or different kind of accident from any
provides increased assurance that the
consequences of a postulated accident which
involves no significant hazards accident previously evaluated.
consideration. 3. Do changes involve a significant
included radioactive release would be reduction in the margin of safety?
minimized because the overall number of Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lillian M.
Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion The proposed changes do not involve a
rods in DNB would not exceed the 0.1% significant reduction in a margin of safety.
level. All the pertinent evaluations to be Resources Services, Inc., Millstone
The proposed changes correct errors in the
performed as part of the cycle specific reload Power Station, Building 475, 5th Floor, unit designations used in the f1(DI) equation.
safety analysis to confirm that the existing Rope Ferry Road, Rt. 156, Waterford, This will eliminate the possibility of an error
safety analyses remain applicable have been Connecticut 06385. resulting from incorrect interpretation of the
performed with VIPRE–D/BWU and found to NRC Section Chief: Evangelos C. equation and potential subsequent errors in
be acceptable. The use of a different code/ Marinos. the application of the equation. The
correlation pair will not increase the allowable value of the Overtemperature DT
probability of an accident because plant Virginia Electric and Power Company, function is unaffected. Therefore, the
systems will not be operated in a different Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North proposed changes will not significantly
manner, and system interfaces will not Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and reduce the margin of safety as defined in the
change. The use of the VIPRE–D/BWU code/ No. 2, Louisa County, Virginia Technical Specifications.
correlation pair will not result in a
measurable impact on normal operating plant Date of amendment request: July 14, The NRC staff has reviewed the
releases, and will not increase the predicted 2005. licensee’s analysis and, based on this

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Aug 15, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2005 / Notices 48209

review, it appears that the three Reading Room on the Internet at the No significant hazards consideration
standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ comments received: No.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
determine that the amendment request have access to ADAMS or if there are
Company, et al. Docket Nos. 50–334 and
involves no significant hazards problems in accessing the documents
50–412, Beaver Valley Power Station,
consideration. located in ADAMS, contact the PDR
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lillian M. Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS–1 and 2),
Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion (301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Resources Services, Inc., Millstone pdr@nrc.gov. Date of application for amendments:
Power Station, Building 475, 5th Floor, February 22, 2005.
Rope Ferry Road, Rt. 156, Waterford, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Brief description of amendments: The
Connecticut 06385. Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear amendments revise Technical
NRC Section Chief: Evangelos C. Power Station, Plymouth County,
Specifications by eliminating the
Marinos. Massachusetts
requirements to provide the NRC
Date of application for amendment: monthly operating reports and annual
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
December 14, 2004. occupational radiation exposure reports.
Facility Operating Licenses Brief description of amendment: The Date of issuance: July 28, 2005.
During the period since publication of amendment revised Technical Effective date: As of the date of
the last biweekly notice, the Specification (TS) 3.3.G, ‘‘Scram issuance and shall be implemented
Commission has issued the following Discharge Volume,’’ for the condition of within 60 days.
amendments. The Commission has having one or more SDV vent or drain Amendment Nos.: 266 and 148.
determined for each of these lines with inoperable valves. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
amendments that the application Date of issuance: July 29, 2005. 66 and NPF–73: Amendments revised
complies with the standards and Effective date: As of the date of the Technical Specifications.
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act issuance, and shall be implemented Date of initial notice in Federal
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the within 60 days. Register: May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24651).
Commission’s rules and regulations. Amendment No.: 216. The Commission’s related evaluation
The Commission has made appropriate Facility Operating License No. DPR– of the amendments is contained in a
findings as required by the Act and the 35: The amendment revised the TSs. Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2005.
Commission’s rules and regulations in Date of initial notice in Federal No significant hazards consideration
10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in Register: May 24, 2005 (70 FR 29792). comments received: No.
the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of The Commission’s related evaluation FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Amendment to Facility Operating of the amendment is contained in a Company, Docket No. 50–346, Davis-
License, Proposed No Significant Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2005. Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1,
Hazards Consideration Determination, No significant hazards consideration Ottawa County, Ohio
and Opportunity for a Hearing in comments received: No.
Date of application for amendment:
connection with these actions was Exelon Generation Company, LLC, July 29, 2004.
published in the Federal Register as Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, Brief description of amendment: The
indicated. Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 amendment deleted the requirements
Unless otherwise indicated, the and 2, Montgomery County, from the technical specifications to
Commission has determined that these Pennsylvania maintain a hydrogen dilution system, a
amendments satisfy the criteria for hydrogen purge system, and hydrogen
Date of application for amendments:
categorical exclusion in accordance monitors.
April 8, 2004.
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant Brief description of amendments: Date of issuance: August 1, 2005.
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental These amendments relocated several Effective date: As of the date of
impact statement or environmental Technical Specifications (TSs) from issuance and shall be implemented
assessment need be prepared for these Section 6, ‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ within 120 days.
amendments. If the Commission has requirements to the Quality Assurance Amendment No.: 265.
prepared an environmental assessment Topical Report. Specifically, the Facility Operating License No. NPF–3:
under the special circumstances amendments relocated (1) the Plant Amendment revised the Technical
provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has Operations Review Committee and Specifications.
made a determination based on that Nuclear Review Board requirements, (2) Date of initial notice in Federal
assessment, it is so indicated. the program/procedure review and Register: February 15, 2005 (70 FR 7764).
For further details with respect to the The Commission’s related evaluation
approval requirements, and (3) the
action see (1) the applications for of the amendment is contained in a
record-retention requirements.
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) Date of issuance: July 25, 2005. Safety Evaluation dated August 1, 2005.
the Commission’s related letter, Safety Effective date: As of the date of No significant hazards consideration
Evaluation and/or Environmental issuance and shall be implemented comments received: No.
Assessment as indicated. All of these within 60 days.
items are available for public inspection Florida Power Corporation, et al.,
Amendment Nos.: 176 and 138. Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit
at the Commission’s Public Document Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus
39 and NPF–85. The amendments
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 County, Florida
revised the TSs.
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Date of initial notice in Federal Date of application for amendment:
Maryland. Publicly available records Register: June 22, 2004 (69 FR 34701). October 15, 2004.
will be accessible from the Agencywide The Commission’s related evaluation Brief description of amendment: The
Documents Access and Management of the amendments is contained in a amendment revises surveillance
Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2005. requirements related to the reactor

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:37 Aug 15, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1
48210 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2005 / Notices

coolant pump flywheel inspections to The Commission’s related evaluation Yankee Atomic Electric Co., Docket No.
extend the allowable inspection interval of the amendments is contained in a 50–29, Yankee Nuclear Power Station
to 20 years. Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 2005. (YNPS) Franklin County, Massachusetts
Date of issuance: July 27, 2005. No significant hazards consideration Date of amendment request:
Effective date: July 27, 2005. comments received: No. November 24, 2003, and supplemented
Amendment No.: 218. by letters dated December 10, 2003,
Facility Operating License No. DPR– PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–
387 and 50–388, Susquehanna Steam December 16, 2003, January 19, 2004,
72: Amendment revises the Technical January 21, 2004, February 10, 2004,
Specifications. Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1
and 2), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania March 4, 2004, April 27, 2004, August
Date of initial notice in Federal
3, 2004, September 2, 2004, September
Register: March 1, 2005 (70 FR 9992). Date of application for amendments: 2, 2004, September 30, 2004, November
The Commission’s related evaluation September 8, 2004. 19, 2004, December 10, 2004, and April
of the amendment is contained in a Brief description of amendments: The 7, 2005. Supplemental letters provided
Safety Evaluation dated July 27, 2005. amendments revised SSES 1 and 2 additional clarifying information that
No significant hazards consideration Technical Specification (TS) did not expand the scope of the
comments received: No. Surveillance Requirement 3.6.1.3.6 of application as originally noticed and
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50– TS 3.6.1.3, ‘‘Primary Containment did not change the staff’s original
387 and 50–388, Susquehanna Steam Isolation Valves,’’ to reduce the proposed no significant hazards
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne frequency of performing leakage rate consideration determination.
County, Pennsylvania testing for each primary containment Description of amendment request:
purge valve with resilient seals from 184 The amendment revises the license to
Date of application for amendments:
days to 24 months. incorporate a new license condition
May 11, 2004.
Brief description of amendments: The Date of issuance: August 4, 2005. addressing the license termination plan
amendments revise Technical Effective date: As of the date of (LTP). This amendment documents the
Specification (TS) Surveillance issuance, and shall be implemented approval of the LTP, documents the
Requirement 3.1.7.7 acceptance criteria within 60 days. criteria for making changes to the LTP
from 1224 psig to 1395 psig in TS 3.1.7, Amendment Nos.: 223 and 200. which will and will not require pre-
‘‘Standby Liquid Control System.’’ Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– approval by the NRC, and documents
Date of issuance: July 25, 2005. 14 and NPF–22: The amendments the conditions imposed with the
Effective date: As of the date of revised the Technical Specifications. approval of the LTP.
issuance, and shall be implemented Date of initial notice in Federal Date of issuance: July 28, 2005.
Effective date: Effective as of the date
within 30 days. Register: March 1, 2005 (70 FR 9995).
of issuance and shall be implemented
Amendment Nos.: 221, 198. The Commission’s related evaluation
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– within 30 days from the date of
of the amendments is contained in a
14 and NPF–22: The amendments issuance.
Safety Evaluation dated August 4, 2005. Amendment No.: 158.
revised the Technical Specifications. No significant hazards consideration Facility Operating License No. DPR–3:
Date of initial notice in Federal comments received: No. Amendment revises the license.
Register: July 6, 2004 (69 FR 40678). Date of initial notice in Federal
The Commission’s related evaluation Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket
Nos. 50–259 Browns Ferry Nuclear Register: February 18, 2003 (68 FR
of the amendments is contained in a 7823).
Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2005. Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County,
Alabama The Commission’s related evaluation
No significant hazards consideration of the amendment, state consultation,
comments received: No. Date of application for amendment: and final NSHC determination are
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50– August 2, 2004 (TS–435). contained in a safety evaluation dated
387 and 50–388, Susquehanna Steam Brief description of amendment: The July 28, 2005.
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne amendment modifies the Technical No significant hazards consideration
County, Pennsylvania Specification (TS) 3.6.3.1 required comments received: No.
action to provide 7 days of continued NRC Section Chief: Claudia Craig.
Date of application for amendments: operation with two Containment Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day
September 8, 2004. Atmosphere Dilution subsystems of August, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The inoperable.
amendments revised Technical For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Date of issuance: July 18, 2005. Ledyard B. Marsh,
Specification 3.1.8, ‘‘Scram Discharge
Effective date: As of the date of Director, Division of Licensing Project
Volume (SDV) Vent and Drain Valves,’’
issuance and shall be implemented Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
for the condition of having one or more
within 60 days of issuance. Regulation.
SDV vent or drain lines with one or both
valves inoperable. Amendment No.: 255. [FR Doc. E5–4403 Filed 8–15–05; 8:45 am]
Date of issuance: July 26, 2005. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Effective date: As of the date of 33: Amendment revised the Technical
issuance, and shall be implemented Specifications.
within 60 days. Date of initial notice in Federal OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
Amendment Nos.: 222 and 199. Register: November 9, 2004 (69 FR MANAGEMENT
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 64991).
14 and NPF–22: The amendments The Commission’s related evaluation January 2005 Pay Adjustments
revised the Technical Specifications. of the amendment is contained in a AGENCY: Office of Personnel
Date of initial notice in Federal Safety Evaluation dated July 18, 2005. Management.
Register: December 7, 2004 (69 FR No significant hazards consideration
ACTION: Notice.
70721). comments received: No.

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Aug 15, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1