[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61475-61485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-26890]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

I. Background

    Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular 
biweekly notice. Public Law 97-415 revised section 189 of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), to require the Commission to 
publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, 
under a new provision of section 189 of the Act. This provision grants 
the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective 
any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the 
Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards 
consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a 
request for a hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued, from October 3,

[[Page 61476]]

2003, through October 16, 2003. The last biweekly notice was published 
on October 14, 2003 (68 FR 59212).

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, 
and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely 
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, 
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of 
the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments received 
before action is taken. Should the Commission take this action, it will 
publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance and provide for 
opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that 
the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of 
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to 
Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of 
written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The 
filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene 
is discussed below.
    By November 28, 2003, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility 
operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding 
must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene 
shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice 
for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714, which is 
available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing 
or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the 
Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the 
Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or 
the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of 
a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the 
Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of 
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition 
should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of 
the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person 
who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been 
admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of 
the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy 
the specificity requirements described above.
    Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to 
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions 
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must 
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a 
brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise 
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the 
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the 
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references 
to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those 
facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material 
issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within 
the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be 
one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these 
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be 
permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves 
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any

[[Page 61477]]

hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's PDR, 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. 
Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States 
Government offices, it is requested that petitions for leave to 
intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of 
the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-
1101 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the request for 
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the 
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and because of continuing disruptions in 
delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested 
that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 
301-415-3725 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be 
sent to the attorney for the licensee.
    Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended 
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for a hearing will 
not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the 
presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the 
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of 
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to 
[email protected].

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, 
Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois;Docket Nos. STN 
50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Will 
County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: August 15, 2003.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.15, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant 
System] Leakage Detection Instrumentation,'' to require one containment 
sump monitor and one containment atmosphere particulate radioactivity 
monitor to be operable in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4. The amendments would 
eliminate the gaseous channel from Limiting Condition for Operation 
(LCO) 3.4.15 and restrict the LCO for the containment atmosphere 
radioactivity monitor to the particulate channel.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. The proposed TS change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change has been evaluated and determined to not 
increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated. The proposed change does not make any hardware changes 
and does not alter the configuration of any plant system, structure 
or component (SSC). The proposed change only removes the containment 
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor as an option for meeting 
the operability requirement for TS LCO 3.4.15. The containment 
radiation monitors are not initiators of any accident; therefore, 
the probability of occurrence of an accident is not increased. The 
TS will continue to require diverse means of leakage detection 
equipment, thus ensuring that leakage due to cracks would continue 
to be identified prior to breakage and the plant shutdown 
accordingly. Therefore, the consequences of an accident are not 
increased.
    2. The proposed TS change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change does not involve the use or installation of 
new equipment and the currently installed equipment will not be 
operated in a new or different manner. No new or different system 
interactions are created and no new processes are introduced. The 
proposed changes will not introduce any new failure mechanisms, 
malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the 
design and licensing bases. The proposed change does not affect any 
SSC associated with an accident initiator. Based on this evaluation, 
the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed TS change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change does not make any alteration to any RCS 
leakage detection components. The proposed change only removes the 
containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor as an option 
for meeting the operability requirement for TS LCO 3.4.15, since the 
level of radioactivity in the Byron/Braidwood Stations reactor 
coolant has become much lower than what was assumed in the Byron/
Braidwood Stations UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] and 
the gaseous channel l can no longer promptly detect a small RCS leak 
consistent with the technical basis in the approved leak-before-
break analysis for Byron and Braidwood Stations. The proposed 
amendment continues to require, in the TS, diverse means of leakage 
detection equipment with capability to promptly detect RCS leakage. 
Although not required by TS, additional diverse means of leakage 
detection capability are available. Based on this evaluation, the 
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Edward J. Cullen, Deputy General 
Counsel, Exelon BSC--Legal, 2301 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19101.
    NRC Section Chief: Anthony J. Mendiola.

Florida Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-335, St. Lucie Plant, 
Unit No. 1, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: September 18, 2003.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment would revise the 
licensing bases to utilize the alternate source term (AST) as allowed 
in 10 CFR 50.67 for reanalysis of the radiological consequences of the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15 accidents. The 
established Regulatory Guide 1.183 AST methodology is being used to 
calculate the radiological consequences in the control room and 
offsite. The AST results are used to support the habitability program 
of the control room by addressing the radiological impact of increased 
control room unfiltered air in-leakage.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

[[Page 61478]]

licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant 
hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Alternative source term calculations have been performed for St. 
Lucie Unit 1 that demonstrate the dose consequences remain below 
limits specified in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 and 10 CFR 50.67. The 
proposed change does not modify the design or operation of the 
plant. The use of an AST changes only the regulatory assumptions 
regarding the analytical treatment of the design basis accidents and 
has no direct effect on the probability of any accident. The AST has 
been utilized in the analysis of the limiting design basis accidents 
listed above. The results of the analyses, which include the 
proposed changes to the Technical Specifications, demonstrate that 
the dose consequences of these limiting events are all within the 
regulatory limits. The proposed Technical Specification changes to 
the RCS [reactor coolant system] operational leakage limits and to 
the shield building bypass leakage rate acceptance criterion result 
in more restrictive requirements and support the AST revisions to 
the limiting design basis accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change does not affect any plant structures, 
systems, or components. The operation of plant systems and equipment 
will not be affected by this proposed change. The alternative source 
term and the more restrictive proposed leakage limits do not have 
the capability to initiate accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    The proposed implementation of the alternative source term 
methodology is consistent with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183. The 
Technical Specification changes to the RCS operational leakage 
limits and to the shield building bypass leakage rate acceptance 
criterion result in more restrictive requirements and support 
revisions to the radiological analyses of the limiting design basis 
accidents. Conservative methodologies, per the guidance of RG 1.183, 
have been used in performing the accident analyses. The radiological 
consequences of these accidents are all within the regulatory 
acceptance criteria associated with use of the alternative source 
term methodology.
    The proposed changes continue to ensure that the doses at the 
exclusion area and low population zone boundaries and in the control 
room are within the corresponding regulatory limits of RG 1.183 and 
10 CFR 50.67. The margin of safety for the radiological consequences 
of these accidents is considered to be that provided by meeting the 
applicable regulatory limits, which are set at or below the 10 CFR 
50.67 limits. An acceptable margin of safety is inherent in these 
limits.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Section Chief: Allen G. Howe.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: September 18, 2003.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) for control room ventilation 
systems to model NUREG-1432, Combustion Engineering Standard Technical 
Specifications (CE STSs). The change includes replacing the detailed 
filter testing surveillance requirements currently in the St. Lucie 
Units 1 and 2 control room ventilation systems TSs with a requirement 
to test in accordance with the Ventilation Filter Testing Program.
    In addition, the proposed amendments would revise TS Table 3.3-6, 
Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation, for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, to 
resolve inconsistencies due to changes associated with TS Amendments 
184 (Unit 1) and 127 (Unit 2).
    The proposed amendments also include minor miscellaneous editorial 
corrections to the TSs.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    (1) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendments would not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes to the St. Lucie Unit 1 & 2 Technical 
Specifications will adopt the format of the NUREG-1432 Combustion 
Engineering Standard Technical Specifications for the Unit 1 control 
room emergency ventilation system and the Unit 2 control room 
emergency air cleanup system. Additionally, the Ventilation Filter 
Testing Program of the CE STS is being adopted for the 
aforementioned ventilation systems. No changes are being made to the 
methods of testing, testing scope, or acceptance criteria.
    The proposed changes also correct mode applicability 
requirements for the containment isolation radiation monitor (both 
units) and the fuel storage pool gaseous and particulate monitors 
(both units). These corrections are necessary in order to restore 
consistency with related technical specification requirements for 
the containment isolation system and associated fuel pool area 
ventilation systems.
    The equipment and systems involved are associated with accident 
mitigation. The surveillance testing of this equipment has no 
bearing on the initiation of an accident previously evaluated nor on 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated.
    Implementing the proposed changes does not significantly 
increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The 
performance requirements and acceptance criteria for the affected 
ventilation systems are not being changed. The ability of the 
affected systems to mitigate the effects of postulated accidents is 
not diminished by the proposed changes.
    The changes being proposed do not affect assumptions contained 
in the plants' safety analyses or the physical design of the plants, 
nor do they affect other technical specifications that preserve 
safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, operation of the facility in 
accordance with the proposed amendments would not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously analyzed.
    (2) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendments would not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    The proposed amendments do not involve any changes to the 
operation or performance requirements of the affected systems, nor 
do they involve the addition or modification of any plant equipment. 
As such, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    (3) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendments would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    The margin of safety as defined by 10 CFR Part 100 has not been 
significantly reduced. There will be no decrease in the ability of 
the affected systems to perform their intended safety functions as 
assumed in accident analyses. The proposed changes do not alter the 
bases for assurance that safety-related activities are performed 
correctly or the basis for any Technical Specification related to 
the establishment of or maintenance of a safety margin.


[[Page 61479]]


    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Section Chief: Allen G. Howe.

Florida Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie Plant, 
Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: September 18, 2003.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment would revise the 
licensing bases for St. Lucie Unit 2 to utilize the alternate source 
term (AST) as allowed in 10 CFR 50.67 for reanalysis of the 
radiological consequences of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) Chapter 15 accidents. The established Regulatory Guide 1.183 
AST methodology is being used to calculate the radiological 
consequences in the control room and offsite. The AST results are used 
to support the habitability program of the control room by addressing 
the radiological impact of increased control room unfiltered air in-
leakage. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Alternative source term analyses have been performed for St. 
Lucie Unit 2 that demonstrate the dose consequences remain below 
limits specified in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 and 10 CFR 50.67. The 
proposed change does not modify the design or operation of the 
plant. The use of an AST changes only the regulatory assumptions 
regarding the analytical treatment of the design basis accidents and 
has no direct effect on the probability of any accident. The AST has 
been utilized in the analysis of the limiting design basis accidents 
listed above. The results of the analyses, which include the 
proposed changes to the Technical Specifications, demonstrate that 
the dose consequences of these limiting events are all within the 
regulatory limits.
    The proposed Technical Specification changes to the RCS 
operational leakage limits, the shield building bypass leakage rate 
acceptance criterion, and the ECCS ventilation system surveillance 
requirements result in more restrictive requirements and support the 
AST revisions to the limiting design basis accidents. The ECCS area 
ventilation system does not initiate any design basis accidents. 
Thus, performing additional surveillance tests do not increase the 
probability of any previously evaluated accident. The additional 
surveillance tests will not increase the consequence of any 
previously evaluated accident, rather the surveillance tests provide 
additional assurance that the HEPA filters are capable of mitigating 
the consequences of accidents consistent with AST assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change does not affect any plant structures, 
systems, or components. The operation of plant systems and equipment 
will not be affected by this proposed change. The alternative source 
term, the more restrictive proposed leakage limits, and the ECCS 
filter surveillance do not have the capability to initiate 
accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    The proposed implementation of the alternative source term 
methodology is consistent with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183. The 
Technical Specification changes to the RCS operational leakage 
limits, the shield building bypass leakage rate acceptance 
criterion, and the ECCS ventilation system surveillance requirement, 
result in more restrictive requirements and support revisions to the 
radiological analyses of the limiting design basis accidents. 
Conservative RG 1.183 methodologies have been used in performing the 
accident analyses. The radiological consequences of these accidents 
are all within the regulatory acceptance criteria associated with 
use of the alternative source term methodology.
    The proposed changes continue to ensure that the doses at the 
exclusion area and low population zone boundaries and in the control 
room are within the corresponding regulatory limits of RG 1.183 and 
10 CFR 50.67. The margin of safety for the radiological consequences 
of these accidents is considered to be that provided by meeting the 
applicable regulatory limits, which are set at or below the 10 CFR 
50.67 limits. An acceptable margin of safety is inherent in these 
limits.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Section Chief: Allen G. Howe.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2003.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment 
request would revise technical specification surveillance requirement 
3.6.4.2.1 for locked, sealed, or secured secondary containment 
isolation valves (SCIVs).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change does not affect the SCIV design or function. 
In addition, mis-positioned or failed SCIVs are not the initiator of 
any event. The position of a locked, sealed or secured valve and 
blind flange is verified at the time it is locked, sealed or 
secured. Further, since the change impacts only the frequency of 
verification of the blind flange and valve position, it does not 
result in any change in the response of the equipment to an 
accident.
    Based on the above, NPPD concludes that changing the frequency 
for verifying the position of a locked, sealed or secured SCIV does 
not affect the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    This change does not add any new equipment or result in any 
changes to equipment design or capabilities. This change also does 
not result in any changes to the operation of the plant. The 
position of a locked, sealed or secured blind flange and valve is 
verified at the time it is locked, sealed or secured. Further, since 
the change impacts only the frequency of verification of the blind 
flange and valve position, it does not result in any change in the 
response of the equipment to an accident.
    Based on the above, NPPD concludes that changing the frequency 
for verifying the position of a locked, sealed or secured SCIV does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    The SCIVs are administratively controlled and their operation is 
a non-routine event. The position of a locked, sealed or secured

[[Page 61480]]

blind flange and valve is verified at the time it is locked, sealed 
or secured. Additionally, industry experience has shown the valves 
are generally found to be in the correct position. Since the change 
impacts only the frequency of verification of the blind flange and 
valve position, the proposed change will provide a similar level of 
assurance of correct SCIV position as the current frequency of 
verification.
    Based on the above, NPPD concludes that changing the frequency 
for verifying the position of a locked, sealed or secured SCIV does 
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. John R. McPhail, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
    NRC Section Chief: Robert A. Gramm.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: September 16, 2003.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
change the Unit 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) by revising the Unit 2 
Cycle 12 (U2C12) Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) Safety Limits in 
Section 2.1.1.2.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the MCPR Safety Limits does not directly 
or indirectly affect any plant system, equipment, component, or 
change the processes used to operate the plant. Further, the revised 
U2C12 MCPR Safety Limits are generated using NRC approved 
methodology and meet the applicable acceptance criteria. Thus, this 
proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated.
    The U2C12 licensing analyses were performed (using NRC approved 
methodology referenced in Technical Specification Section 5.6.5.b) 
to determine changes in the critical power ratio as a result of 
anticipated operational occurrences. These results are added to the 
revised MCPR Safety Limit values proposed herein to generate MCPR 
operating limits for a revised U2C12 COLR. The COLR operating limits 
thus assure that the MCPR Safety Limits will not be exceeded during 
normal operation or anticipated operational occurrences. Postulated 
accidents were also analyzed and the results shown to be within NRC 
approved criteria.
    Therefore, this proposed amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of occurrence or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The change to the MCPR Safety Limits does not directly or 
indirectly affect any plant system, equipment, or component and 
therefore does not affect the failure modes of any of these items. 
Thus, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a 
previously unevaluated operator error or a new single failure.
    Therefore, this proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Since the proposed changes do not alter any plant system, 
equipment, component, or the processes used to operate the plant, 
the proposed change will not jeopardize or degrade the function or 
operation of any plant system or component governed by Technical 
Specifications. The proposed MCPR Safety Limits do not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety as currently defined 
in the Bases of the applicable Technical Specification sections, 
because the MCPR Safety Limits calculated for U2C12 preserve the 
required margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc, General 
Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3, 
Allentown, PA 18101,1179.
    NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-260 and 50-296, Browns Ferry 
Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: September 18, 2003.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the reactor pressure vessel pressure-temperature (P-T) limit 
curves depicted in Technical Specifications (TS) Figure 3.4.9-1 and add 
a new TS Figure 3.4.9-2. Basis for proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 
licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant 
hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed Unit 2 and Unit 3 changes deal exclusively with 
the reactor vessel P-T curves, which define the permissible regions 
for operation and testing. Failure of the reactor vessel is not 
considered as a design basis accident. Through the design 
conservatisms used to calculate the P-T curves, reactor vessel 
failure has a low probability of occurrence and is not considered in 
the safety analyses. The proposed changes adjust the reference 
temperature for the limiting material to account for irradiation 
effects and provide the same level of protection as previously 
evaluated and approved. The adjusted reference temperature 
calculations were performed in accordance with the requirements of 
10 CFR 50 Appendix G using the guidance contained in Regulatory 
Guide 1.190, ``Calculational and Dosimetry Methods for Determining 
Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence,'' to reflect use of the operating 
limits to no more than 30 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY) for Unit 
2 or 28 EFPY for Unit 3. These changes do not alter or prevent the 
operation of equipment required to mitigate any accident analyzed in 
the BFN Final Safety Analysis Report. Therefore, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed changes to the Unit 2 and Unit 3 reactor vessel 
P-T curves do not involve a modification to plant equipment. No new 
failure modes are introduced. There is no effect on the function of 
any plant system, and no new system interactions are introduced by 
this change. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    No. The proposed curves conform to the guidance contained in 
Regulatory Guide 1.190, ``Calculational and Dosimetry Methods for 
Determining Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence,'' and maintain the 
safety margins specified in 10 CFR 50 Appendix G. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this

[[Page 61481]]

review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Section Chief: Allen G. Howe.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear 
Plant Unit 3, Limestone County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: October 1, 2003.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the numeric value of the safety limit minimum critical power 
ratio (SLMCPR) in Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1.2 for one and two 
recirculation loop operation to incorporate the results of the Unit 3 
Cycle 12 core reload analysis.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed amendment establishes a revised SLMCPR value 
for one and two recirculation loop operation. The probability of an 
evaluated accident is derived from the probabilities of the 
individual precursors to that accident. The proposed SLMCPR values 
preserve the existing margin to transition boiling and the 
probability of fuel damage is not increased. Since the change does 
not require any physical plant modifications or physically affect 
any plant components, no individual precursors of an accident are 
affected and the probability of an evaluated accident is not 
increased by revising the SLMCPR values.
    The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the 
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those 
consequences. The revised SLMCPR values have been determined using 
NRC-approved methods and procedures. The basis of the MCPR Safety 
Limit is to ensure no mechanistic fuel damage is calculated to occur 
if the limit is not violated. These calculations do not change the 
method of operating the plant and have no effect on the consequences 
of an evaluated accident. Therefore, the proposed TS change does not 
involve an increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed license amendment involves a revision of the 
SLMCPR value for one and two recirculation loop operation based on the 
results of an analysis of the Cycle 12 core. Creation of the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident would require the 
creation of one or more new precursors of that accident. New accident 
precursors may be created by modifications of the plant configuration, 
including changes in the allowable methods of operating the facility. 
This proposed license amendment does not involve any modifications of 
the plant configuration or changes in the allowable methods of 
operation. Therefore, the proposed TS change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    No. The margin of safety as defined in the TS bases will remain the 
same. The new SLMCPR values were calculated using NRC-approved methods 
and procedures, which are in accordance with the fuel design and 
licensing criteria. The SLMCPR remains high enough to ensure that 
greater than 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core are expected to 
avoid transition boiling if the limit is not violated, thereby 
preserving the fuel cladding integrity. Therefore, the proposed TS 
change does not involve a reduction in the margin of safety.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Section Chief: Allen G. Howe.

Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments 
to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The following notices were previously published as separate 
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were 
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the 
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action 
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the 
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued 
involving no significant hazards consideration.
    For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on 
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period 
of the original notice.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of application for amendments: September 8, 2003, as 
supplemented September 11, 2003.
    Brief description of amendments: The Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report will be revised to reflect a change in the postulated primary-
to-secondary leakage rate in a faulted steam generator in the main 
steamline break analysis.
    Date of publication of individual notice in the Federal Register: 
September 18, 2003 (68 FR 54745).
    Expiration date of individual notice: October 20, 2003.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these 
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety

[[Page 61482]]

Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these 
items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public 
Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-
415-4737 or by email to [email protected].

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendments: December 20, 2002, as 
supplemented by letter dated May 30, 2003.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the basis 
for licensee's compliance with the requirements of Appendix H to 10 CFR 
50, ``Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program Requirements'' for 
Dresden Units 2 and 3. The amendment approves the licensee to implement 
the Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project reactor pressure 
vessel integrated surveillance program.
    Date of issuance: September 29, 2003.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to the next reactor vessel surveillance capsule removal.
    Amendment Nos.: 202/194.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and the Update Final Safety 
Analysis Report.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 4, 2003 (68 FR 
5669). The May 30, 2003, submittal provided additional clarifying 
information that did not change the initial proposed no significant 
hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the 
amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 
2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 
1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendments: February 14, 2003, as 
supplemented by letter dated August 8, 2003.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments relax the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) surveillance requirement (SR) for reactor 
instrumentation line excess flow check valves (EFCVs). Currently, TSs 
require testing of each reactor instrumentation line EFCV on a 24 month 
frequency. The proposed TS SR requires that a representative sample of 
reactor instrumentation line EFCVs be tested every 24 months, such that 
each EFCV will be tested nominally once every 10 years.
    Date of issuance: October 10, 2003.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 203/195, 218/212.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, DPR-29 and DPR-30. 
The amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 13, 2003 (68 FR 
25654). The August 8, 2003, submittal provided additional clarifying 
information that did not change the initial proposed no significant 
hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the 
amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 10, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendments: February 26, 2003.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorize changes 
to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to describe a load 
drop analysis performed for handling reactor cavity shield blocks 
weighing greater than 110 tons with the Unit 2/3 reactor building crane 
during power operation.
    Date of issuance: October 10, 2003.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to handling reactor cavity shield blocks weighing greater than 
110 tons with the Unit 2/3 reactor building crane for refueling outage 
D2R18.
    Amendment Nos.: 204 and 196.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: The amendments 
revised the UFSAR.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 24, 2003 (68 FR 
37576). The June 12, July 25, September 11, and October 9, 2003, 
submittals provided additional clarifying information that did not 
change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 10, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-
278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, York and Lancaster 
Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: June 23, 2003, as supplemented 
September 4, 2003.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications for the safety limit minimum critical power ratio.
    Date of issuance: October 3, 2003.
    Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to startup for Cycle 15 operations, scheduled for October 2003.
    Amendment No.: 252.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-56: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2003 (68 FR 
46243). The September 4, 2003, letter provided information that did not 
change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination or expand the application beyond the scope of the 
original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 3, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse 
Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Ottawa County, Ohio

    Date of application for amendment: April 1, 2001, as supplemented 
by letters dated April 30, and May 6, 2003.
    Brief description of amendment: The proposed changes involve 
Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.3.1, ``Reactor Protection System (RPS) 
Instrumentation,'' TS 3/4.3.2.1, ``Safety Features Actuation System 
(SFAS) Instrumentation,'' and TS 3/4.3.2.2, ``Steam and Feedwater 
Rupture Control System (SFRCS) Instrumentation.'' The

[[Page 61483]]

proposed changes to TS Table 3.3-3, ``SFAS Instrumentation,'' and Table 
3.3-11, ``SFRCS Instrumentation,'' will allow an 8-hour delay in 
entering an action statement when an SFAS or SFRCS instrumentation 
channel is undergoing channel functional testing, and will clarify the 
term ``total bypass function'' for Surveillance Requirement (SR) 
4.3.1.1.2, SR 4.3.2.1.2, and SR 4.3.2.2.2. In addition, the proposed 
changes will revise Bases 3/4.3.1 and 3/4.3.2 to reflect the above-
described TS changes.
    Date of issuance: September 29, 2003.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment No.: 259.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 30, 2001 (66 FR 
29356). The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and 
did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration 
determination and did not expand the scope of the original Federal 
Register notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment 
is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse 
Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Ottawa County, Ohio

    Date of application for amendment: December 20, 2002.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment updates the title of 
the onsite review committee in Technical Specification (TS) sections 
6.7, 6.14, and 6.15, and updates the version of Regulatory Guide 1.33 
referenced in TS section 6.8.
    Date of issuance: October 2, 2003.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment No.: 260.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 4, 2003 (68 FR 
10279). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 2, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

    Date of application for amendment: October 23, 2002, as 
supplemented July 25 and August 11, 2003.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Crystal River 
Unit 3 Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) 4.2.1, ``Fuel 
Assemblies,'' and ITS 4.2.2, ``Control Rods,'' to permit the use of 
Framatome ANP M5 advanced alloy for fuel rod cladding and fuel assembly 
structural components.
    Date of issuance: October 1, 2003.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 210.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 7, 2003 (68 FR 
805). The supplements dated July 25 and August 11, 2003, provided 
clarifying information only and did not change the initial proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination or expand the scope of 
the initial application.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 1, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

    Date of application for amendment: December 19, 2002, as 
supplemented May 9, June 9, July 15, July 31, and October 1, 2003.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Crystal River 
Unit 3 Improved Technical Specification (ITS) 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core 
Safety Limits.'' The proposed change will permit the use of the BHTP 
correlation, which is needed to utilize the Framatome ANP high thermal 
performance (HTP) spacer grid design.
    Date of issuance: October 16, 2003.
    Effective date: October 16, 2003.
    Amendment No.: 211.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revised the 
License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 4, 2003 (68 FR 
5677). The supplements dated May 9, June 9, July 15, July 31, and 
October 1, 2003, provided clarifying information only and did not 
change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination or expand the scope of the initial application.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 16, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: February 3, 2003.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revises Technical 
Specification (TS) 3/4.7.1.4, ``Turbine Cycle-Specific Activity,'' and 
its associated bases. With the exception of TS 4.0.4, wording similar 
to that presented in the improved Standard Technical Specifications 
will be adopted. The amendment inserts an exception to the requirements 
of TS 4.0.4 when entering MODE 4, along with conditions for when the 
surveillance requirement must be satisfied in MODE 4. Additionally, 
there are editorial changes to the TS Index, reflecting the changes 
made by the amendment.
    Date of issuance: October 3, 2003.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 92.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 29, 2003 (68 FR 
22748). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 3, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: October 11, 2002, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 29, 2003.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment relocates Technical 
Specifications (TSs) Sections 3.1.2.1, ``Reactivity Control Systems-
Boration Systems-Flow Paths-Shutdown;'' 3.1.2.2, ``Reactivity Control 
Systems-Boration Systems-Flow Paths-Operating;'' 3.1.2.3, ``Reactivity 
Control Systems-Boration Systems-Charging Pumps-Shutdown;'' 3.1.2.4, 
``Reactivity Control Systems-Boration Systems-Charging Pumps-
Operating;'' 3.1.2.5, ``Reactivity Control Systems-Boration Systems-
Borated Water Sources-Shutdown;'' 3.1.2.6, ``Reactivity Control 
Systems-Boration Systems-Borated Water Sources-Operating;'' and 3.4.7, 
``Reactor Coolant System-Chemistry,'' to the Seabrook Station Technical

[[Page 61484]]

Requirements Manual (SSTR). The amendment also revises TS 3.1.2.7, 
``Reactivity Control Systems-Boration Systems-Isolation of Unborated 
Water Sources-Shutdown.''
    The amendment also revises TSs 3.4.1.2, ``Reactor Coolant System-
Reactor Coolant Loops and Coolant Recirculation-Hot Standby;'' 3.4.3, 
``Reactor Coolant System-Pressurizer;'' 3.4.7, ``Reactor Coolant 
System-Chemistry;'' and 3.9.2, ``Refueling Operations-
Instrumentation,'' to adopt wording that more closely resembles NUREG-
1431, Revision 2, ``Standard Technical Specifications.'' The revision 
to TS 3/4.9.2 also involves surveillance changes. The associated Bases 
have been modified as a result of the changes.
    Date of issuance: October 3, 2003.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 93.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the 
TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 10, 2002 (67 
FR 75880). The May 29, 2003, letter provided clarifying information 
that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination or expand the amendment beyond the scope of 
the initial notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 3, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: October 11, 2002, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 30, 2003 (two letters), July 16, 2003, August 18, 
2003, September 9, 2003, and September 15, 2003.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revises Technical 
Specification (TS) 3/4.9.4, Containment Building Penetrations,'' to 
permit the equipment hatch to be open during core alterations and/or 
during movement of irradiated fuel assemblies within containment. 
Specifically, the applicability of the TS would be modified to apply 
only to the movement of recently irradiated fuel assemblies. Recently 
irradiated fuel assemblies would be described in the bases as fuel that 
has occupied part of a critical reactor core within the past 80 hours.
    Date of issuance: October 3, 2003.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 94.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revises the TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 26, 2002 (67 
FR 70766). The May 30, 2003, July 16, 2003, August 18, 2003, September 
9, 2003, and September 15, 2003, letters provided clarifying 
information that did not change the initial proposed no significant 
hazards consideration determination nor expand the amendment beyond the 
scope of the initial notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 3, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: October 11, 2002, as supplemented by 
letters dated July 16, 2003, July 17, 2003, August 18, 2003, August 25, 
2003, September 9, 2003, and September 15, 2003.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revises Technical 
Specification (TS) 3/4.9.3, ``Decay Time,'' reducing the minimum time 
irradiated fuel must decay after occupying part of a critical core from 
100 to 80 hours.
    Date of issuance: October 3, 2003.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 95.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revises the TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 26, 2002 (67 
FR 70767). The July 16, 2003, July 17, 2003, August 18, 2003, August 
25, 2003, September 9, 2003, and September 15, 2003, letters provided 
clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination nor expand the 
amendment beyond the scope of the initial notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 3, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald 
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan

    Date of application for amendments: September 3, 2003.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical 
Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.6.5.1.d to 
replace the phrase ``Each ice basket'' with the phrase ``Ice baskets.'' 
This change makes the LCO consistent with associated TS Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 4.6.5.1.b.2 and allows the SR to define the detailed 
requirements for ice basket weight.
    Date of issuance: October 10, 2003.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 45 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 280 and 262.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: Amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 10, 2003 (68 
FR 53402). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 10, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: July 3, 2003, as supplemented 
by letters dated September 9 and 23, 2003.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications, Section 3.8.1, ``AC [alternating current] 
Sources--Operating,'' to extend the allowable Completion Time for 
Required Actions for one offsite circuit inoperable, from 72 hours to 
10 days on a one-time basis.
    Date of issuance: October 10, 2003.
    Effective date: Upon issuance and shall be implemented by October 
31, 2003.
    Amendment Nos.: 214 and 189.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2003. (68 FR 
43392). The supplemental letters dated September 9 and 23, 2003, 
provided clarifying information that did not expand the scope of the 
requested action as described in the initial Federal Register notice, 
and did not change the staff's proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 10, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of application for amendment: May 14, 2003, as supplemented 
June 24, 2003.

[[Page 61485]]

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,'' and 
TS 3.4.1, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure, Temperature, and 
Flow DNB [Departure from Nucleate Boiling] Limits.'' The revised TS 
allows the measurement of RCS flow using the elbow flow tap methodology 
as an alternative to the current flow calorimetric method.
    Date of issuance: October 3, 2003.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 47.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 24, 2003 (68 FR 
37584). The supplemental letter provided clarifying information that 
did not expand the scope of the original request and did not change the 
initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 3, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of application for amendment: May 30, 2003, as supplemented 
August 18, September 10, September 30, and October 3, 2003.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.5.1, ``Accumulators,'' TS 3.5.4, ``Refueling Water 
Storage Tank (RWST)'' and TS 4.2.1, ``Fuel Assemblies,'' to revise the 
minimum and maximum accumulator and RWST boron concentration and to 
limit the maximum number of tritium producing burnable absorber rods 
(TPBARs) that can be loaded into the reactor core accordingly. The 
requested change would also add the cycle-specific number of TPBARs to 
the Core Operating Limits Report. The licensee is revising the 
corresponding TS Bases pages.
    Date of issuance: October 8, 2003.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 48.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2003 (68 FR 
40720). The supplemental letters provided clarifying information that 
did not expand the scope of the original request and did not change the 
initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 8, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

TXU Generation Company LP, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak 
Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: July 10, 2003, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 28, 2003.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the 
Technical Specification (TS) reflecting approval of a one-time 
extension for each unit of allowable outage time for restoring the 
operability of control room emergency filtration system boundary.
    Date of issuance: October 2, 2003.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance. The TS shall be 
implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 108 and 108.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments 
revised the TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2003 (68 FR 
46246)
    The August 28, 2003, supplemental letter provided clarifying 
information and did not change the scope of the original Federal 
Register notice or the staff's original no significant hazards 
consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 2, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of application for amendment: October 3, 2002.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Tables 3.3.1-
1 (Reactor Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation) and 3.3.2-1 (Engineered 
Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation) of Limiting 
Conditions for Operation 3.3.1, ``RTS Instrumentation,'' and 3.3.2, 
``ESFAS Instrumentation,'' of the TSs. The revisions are for the SG 
water level low-low (adverse and normal containment environment) 
functions.
    Date of issuance: October 2, 2003.
    Effective date: October 2, 2003, and shall be implemented within 60 
days of the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 157.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 26, 2003 (67 
FR 70770). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 2, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of application for amendments: November 5, 2002, as 
supplemented February 14 and June 9, 2003.
    Brief Description of amendments: These amendments revise the 
technical specifications to delete the monthly analog rod position test 
for the control rod bottom bistables.
    Date of issuance: October 1, 2003.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 237 and 236.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: 
Amendments change the Technical Specifications surveillance 
requirements.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 4, 2003 (68 FR 
5683). The February 14 and June 9, 2003, supplements contained 
clarifying information only and did not change the initial proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination or expand the scope of 
the initial application.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 1, 2003.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of October, 2003.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 03-26890 Filed 10-27-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P