[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