Notice: Operating Licenses, Amendments No Significant Hazards Considerations Biweekly Notices

7762 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.
30 / Tuesday, February 15, 2005 / Notices
braille, large print), please notify the Under the Commission’s regulations in White Flint North, 11545 Rockville
NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30
August Spector, at 301–415–7080, TDD: of the facility in accordance with the a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
301–415–2100, or by e-mail at proposed amendment would not (1) Copies of written comments received
aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on Involve a significant increase in the may be examined at the Commission’s
requests for reasonable accommodations probability or consequences of an Public Document Room (PDR), located
will be made on a case-by-case basis. accident previously evaluated; or (2) at One White Flint North, Public File
This notice is distributed by mail to create the possibility of a new or Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
several hundred subscribers; if you no different kind of accident from any floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of
longer wish to receive it, or would like accident previously evaluated; or (3) requests for a hearing and petitions for
to be added to the distribution, please involve a significant reduction in a leave to intervene is discussed below.
contact the Office of the Secretary, margin of safety. The basis for this Within 60 days after the date of
Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969). proposed determination for each publication of this notice, the licensee
In addition, distribution of this meeting amendment request is shown below. may file a request for a hearing with
notice over the Internet system is The Commission is seeking public respect to issuance of the amendment to
available. If you are interested in comments on this proposed the subject facility operating license and
receiving this Commission meeting determination. Any comments received any person whose interest may be
schedule electronically, please send an within 30 days after the date of affected by this proceeding and who
electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. publication of this notice will be wishes to participate as a party in the
considered in making any final proceeding must file a written request
Dated: February 10, 2005.
determination. Within 60 days after the for a hearing and a petition for leave to
Dave Gamberoni, date of publication of this notice, the intervene. Requests for a hearing and a
Office of the Secretary. licensee may file a request for a hearing petition for leave to intervene shall be
[FR Doc. 05–2952 Filed 2–11–05; 8:45 am] with respect to issuance of the filed in accordance with the
BILLING CODE 7590–01–M amendment to the subject facility Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for
operating license and any person whose Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10
interest may be affected by this CFR part 2. Interested persons should
NUCLEAR REGULATORY proceeding and who wishes to consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
COMMISSION participate as a party in the proceeding which is available at the Commission’s
must file a written request for a hearing PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Biweekly Notice; Applications and and a petition for leave to intervene. Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville
Amendments to Facility Operating Normally, the Commission will not Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Licenses Involving No Significant issue the amendment until the Publicly available records will be
Hazards Considerations expiration of 60 days after the date of accessible from the Agencywide
I. Background publication of this notice. The Documents Access and Management
Commission may issue the license System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the amendment before expiration of the 60- Reading Room on the Internet at the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended day period provided that its final NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory determination is that the amendment reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a
Commission (the Commission or NRC involves no significant hazards request for a hearing or petition for
staff) is publishing this regular biweekly consideration. In addition, the leave to intervene is filed within 60
notice. The Act requires the Commission may issue the amendment days, the Commission or a presiding
Commission publish notice of any prior to the expiration of the 30-day officer designated by the Commission or
amendments issued, or proposed to be comment period should circumstances by the Chief Administrative Judge of the
issued and grants the Commission the change during the 30-day comment Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
authority to issue and make period such that failure to act in a Panel, will rule on the request and/or
immediately effective any amendment timely way would result, for example in petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
to an operating license upon a derating or shutdown of the facility. Administrative Judge of the Atomic
determination by the Commission that Should the Commission take action Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
such amendment involves no significant prior to the expiration of either the notice of a hearing or an appropriate
hazards consideration, notwithstanding comment period or the notice period, it order.
the pendency before the Commission of will publish in the Federal Register a As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
a request for a hearing from any person. notice of issuance. Should the petition for leave to intervene shall set
This biweekly notice includes all Commission make a final No Significant forth with particularity the interest of
notices of amendments issued, or Hazards Consideration Determination, the petitioner in the proceeding, and
proposed to be issued from January 20, any hearing will take place after how that interest may be affected by the
2005, through February 3, 2005. The last issuance. The Commission expects that results of the proceeding. The petition
biweekly notice was published on the need to take this action will occur should specifically explain the reasons
February 1, 2005 (70 FR 5233). very infrequently. why intervention should be permitted
Written comments may be submitted with particular reference to the
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of by mail to the Chief, Rules and following general requirements: (1) The
Amendments to Facility Operating Directives Branch, Division of name, address, and telephone number of
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Administrative Services, Office of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
Hazards Consideration Determination, Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
and Opportunity for a Hearing Commission, Washington, DC 20555– right under the Act to be made a party
The Commission has made a 0001, and should cite the publication to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
proposed determination that the date and page number of this Federal extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
following amendment requests involve Register notice. Written comments may property, financial, or other interest in
no significant hazards consideration. also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two the proceeding; and (4) the possible
VerDate jul<14>2003 17:50 Feb 14, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM 15FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 15, 2005 / Notices 7763
effect of any decision or order which Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Carolina Power & Light Company,
may be entered in the proceeding on the Commission, Washington, DC 20555– Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324,
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1
petition must also set forth the specific Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express and 2, Brunswick County, North
contentions which the petitioner/ mail, and expedited delivery services: Carolina; Docket No. 50–400, Shearon
requestor seeks to have litigated at the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1,
proceeding. One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Wake and Chatham Counties, North
Each contention must consist of a Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Carolina; Carolina Power & Light
specific statement of the issue of law or Company, Docket No. 50–261, H. B.
Attention: Rulemaking and
fact to be raised or controverted. In Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No.
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail
addition, the petitioner/requestor shall 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
provide a brief explanation of the bases addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Date of amendments request:
for the contention and a concise
HearingDocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile November 17, 2004.
statement of the alleged facts or expert Description of amendments request:
opinion which support the contention transmission addressed to the Office of
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory The requested change would delete
and on which the petitioner/requestor
Commission, Washington, DC, Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.1,
intends to rely in proving the contention
Attention: Rulemakings and ‘‘Occupational Radiation Exposure
at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor
Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101, Report,’’ and TS 5.6.4, ‘‘Monthly
must also provide references to those
Operating Reports,’’ for the Brunswick
specific sources and documents of verification number is (301) 415–1966.
and H. B. Robinson plants. The
which the petitioner is aware and on A copy of the request for hearing and
equivalent change is being requested for
which the petitioner/requestor intends petition for leave to intervene should the Shearon Harris facility by deleting
to rely to establish those facts or expert also be sent to the Office of the General TS 6.9.1.2.a and TS 6.9.1.2.c under
opinion. The petition must include Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
sufficient information to show that a ‘‘Annual Reports’’ and TS 6.9.1.5,
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– ‘‘Monthly Operating Reports.’’
genuine dispute exists with the 0001, and it is requested that copies be The NRC staff issued a notice of
applicant on a material issue of law or transmitted either by means of facsimile availability of a model no significant
fact. Contentions shall be limited to transmission to (301) 415–3725 or by hazards consideration (NSHC)
matters within the scope of the email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A determination for referencing in license
amendment under consideration. The
copy of the request for hearing and amendment applications in the Federal
contention must be one which, if
petition for leave to intervene should Register on June 23, 2004 (69 FR 35067).
proven, would entitle the petitioner/
requestor to relief. A petitioner/ also be sent to the attorney for the The licensee affirmed the applicability
requestor who fails to satisfy these licensee. of the model NSHC determination in its
requirements with respect to at least one Nontimely requests and/or petitions application dated November 17, 2004.
Basis for proposed no significant
contention will not be permitted to and contentions will not be entertained
hazards consideration determination:
participate as a party. absent a determination by the
Those permitted to intervene become As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an
Commission or the presiding officer of analysis of the issue of no significant
parties to the proceeding, subject to any the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
limitations in the order granting leave to hazards consideration is presented
that the petition, request and/or the below:
intervene, and have the opportunity to contentions should be granted based on
participate fully in the conduct of the 1. Does the proposed change involve a
a balancing of the factors specified in 10 significant increase in the probability or
hearing. CFR 2.309(a)(1)(I)-(viii).
If a hearing is requested, and the consequences of an accident previously
Commission has not made a final For further details with respect to this evaluated?
action, see the application for Response: No.
determination on the issue of no
The proposed change eliminates the
significant hazards consideration, the amendment which is available for Technical Specifications (TS) reporting
Commission will make a final public inspection at the Commission’s requirements to provide a monthly operating
determination on the issue of no PDR, located at One White Flint North, report of shutdown experience and operating
significant hazards consideration. The Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville statistics if the equivalent data is submitted
final determination will serve to decide Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. using an industry electronic database. It also
when the hearing is held. If the final Publicly available records will be eliminates the TS reporting requirement for
determination is that the amendment an annual occupational radiation exposure
accessible from the ADAMS Public report, which provides information beyond
request involves no significant hazards Electronic Reading Room on the Internet that specified in NRC regulations. The
consideration, the Commission may at the NRC Web site, http:// proposed change involves no changes to
issue the amendment and make it www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If plant systems or accident analyses. As such,
immediately effective, notwithstanding you do not have access to ADAMS or if the change is administrative in nature and
the request for a hearing. Any hearing there are problems in accessing the does not affect initiators of analyzed events
held would take place after issuance of or assumed mitigation of accidents or
documents located in ADAMS, contact transients. Therefore, the proposed change
the amendment. If the final
the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397– does not involve a significant increase in the
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards 4209, (301) 415–4737 or by email to probability or consequences of an accident
consideration, any hearing held would pdr@nrc.gov. previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
take place before the issuance of any possibility of a new or different kind of
amendment. accident from any accident previously
A request for a hearing or a petition evaluated?
for leave to intervene must be filed by: Response: No.
(1) First class mail addressed to the The proposed change does not involve a
Office of the Secretary of the physical alteration of the plant, add any new
7764 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 15, 2005 / Notices
equipment, or require any existing the UFSAR. The LCT can be credited to (RG) 1.97, ‘‘Instrumentation for Light-
equipment to be operated in a manner mitigate the consequences of an accident Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to
different from the present design. Therefore, analyzed in the UFSAR. However, this Assess Plant and Environs Conditions
the proposed change does not create the clarification of LCT testing requirements has
no impact on its ability to mitigate the
During and Following an Accident.’’
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously consequences of an accident. As such, the Implementation of these upgrades was
evaluated. proposed LAR [license amendment request] an outcome of the lessons learned from
3. Does the proposed change involve a does not involve a significant increase in the the accident that occurred at TMI, Unit
significant reduction in a margin of safety? probability or consequences of an accident 2. Requirements related to combustible
Response: No. previously evaluated. gas control were imposed by order for
This is an administrative change to (2) Create the possibility of a new or many facilities and were added to or
reporting requirements of plant operating different kind of accident from any kind of included in the TS for nuclear power
information and occupational radiation accident previously evaluated:
Duke proposes the revise TS 5.5.19.b to reactors currently licensed to operate.
exposure data, and has no effect on plant The revised Title 10 of the Code of
equipment, operating practices or safety clarify the Lee Combustion Turbine (LCT)
analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the testing requirements. The proposed change Federal Regulations (10 CFR) section
proposed change does not involve a makes wording of the test requirement 50.44, ‘‘Combustible gas control for
significant reduction in the margin of safety. consistent with the UFSAR and the original nuclear power reactors,’’ eliminated the
wording of the TS requirement before requirements for hydrogen recombiners
Based upon the reasoning presented administrative changes were made in and related vent and purge systems and
above, the requested change does not Amendment 232, 232, 231, and changes were relaxed safety classifications and
involve a significant hazards made in Amendment 300, 300, and 300.
licensee commitments to certain design
consideration. These changes do not alter the nature of
events postulated in the Safety Analysis and qualification criteria for hydrogen
Attorney for licensee: David T.
Report nor do they introduce any unique and oxygen monitors.
Conley, Associate General Counsel II— The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
precursor mechanisms. Therefore, the
Legal Department, Progress Energy Commission (NRC) staff issued a notice
proposed amendment will not create the
Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box possibility of a new or different kind of of availability of a model no significant
1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. accident from any accident previously hazards consideration determination for
NRC Section Chief: Michael L. evaluated. referencing in license amendment
Marshall. (3) Involve a significant reduction in a applications in the Federal Register on
margin of safety.
Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. The proposed TS change does not September 25, 2003 (68 FR 55416). The
50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, Oconee unfavorably affect any plant safety limits, set licensee affirmed the applicability of the
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, points, or design parameters. The changes model no significant hazards
Oconee County, South Carolina also do not unfavorably affect the fuel, fuel consideration determination in its
Date of amendment request: January cladding, RCS [reactor coolant system], or application dated July 29, 2004.
containment integrity. Therefore, the Basis for proposed no significant
5, 2005. proposed TS change, which clarifies TS
Description of amendment request: hazards consideration determination:
requirements associated with the LCT testing As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an
The proposed amendments would program, does not involve a significant
revise the Technical Specification (TS) analysis of the issue of no significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
5.5.19 associated with the Lee hazards consideration is presented
The NRC staff has reviewed the below:
Combustion Turbine (LCT) testing licensee’s analysis and, based on this
program. TS 5.5.19.b currently requires Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not
review, it appears that the three Involve a Significant Increase in the
verification that an LCT can supply the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Probability or Consequences of an Accident
equivalent of one Unit’s maximum satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Previously Evaluated
safeguard loads, plus two Units’ Mode proposes to determine that the
3 loads, when connected to the system The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines
amendment request involves no a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident
grid every 12 months. In the proposed significant hazards consideration. (LOCA) hydrogen release, and eliminates
amendments, this requirement would be Attorney for licensee: Anne W. requirements for hydrogen control systems to
more clearly specified as ‘‘plus two Cottingham, Winston and Strawn LPP, mitigate such a release. The installation of
Units’ safe shutdown loads.’’ 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge
Basis for proposed no significant 20005. systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was
hazards consideration determination: NRC Section Chief: John A. Nakoski. intended to address the limited quantity and
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the rate of hydrogen generation that was
licensee has provided its analysis of the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The
issue of no significant hazards Company, Docket No. 50–346, Davis- NRC has found that this hydrogen release is
consideration, which is presented Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, not risk-significant because the design-basis
Ottawa County, Ohio LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute
below: to the conditional probability of a large
(1) Involve a significant increase in the Date of amendment request: July 29, release up to approximately 24 hours after
probability or consequences of an accident 2004. the onset of core damage. In addition, these
previously evaluated: Description of amendment request: systems were ineffective at mitigating
Duke proposes to revise TS 5.5.19.b to The proposed amendment would delete hydrogen releases from risk-significant
clarify the Lee Combustion Turbine (LCT) the requirements from the technical accident sequences that could threaten
testing requirements. The proposed change specifications (TS) to maintain a containment integrity.
makes the wording of the test requirement hydrogen dilution system, a hydrogen With the elimination of the design-basis
consistent with the UFSAR [Updated Final purge system, and hydrogen monitors. LOCA hydrogen release, hydrogen monitors
Safety Analysis Report] and the original are no longer required to mitigate design-
wording of the TS requirement before
Licensees were generally required to basis accidents and, therefore, the hydrogen
administrative changes were made in implement upgrades as described in monitors do not meet the definition of a
Amendment 232, 232, 231, and Amendment NUREG–0737, ‘‘Clarification of TMI safety-related component as defined in 10
300, 300, and 300. LCT testing has no impact [Three Mile Island] Action Plan CFR 50.2. Category 1 in RG 1.97 is intended
on the probability of an accident analyzed in Requirements,’’ and Regulatory Guide for key variables that most directly indicate
the accomplishment of a safety function for The installation of hydrogen recombiners therefore not accident initiators.
design-basis accident events. The hydrogen and/or vent and purge systems required by Consequently, the proposed changes will
monitors no longer meet the definition of 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address have no impact on the probability of any
Category 1 in RG 1.97. As part of the the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen accident previously evaluated. The detectors
rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44, the NRC generation that was postulated from a design- are not credited in mitigating the
found that Category 3, as defined in RG 1.97, basis LOCA. The NRC has found that this consequences of any accident; therefore, the
is an appropriate categorization for the hydrogen release is not risk-significant proposed changes will have no impact on the
hydrogen monitors because the monitors are because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen consequences of any accident previously
required to diagnose the course of beyond release does not contribute to the conditional evaluated.
design-basis accidents. probability of a large release up to 2. Does the proposed change create the
The regulatory requirements for the approximately 24 hours after the onset of possibility of a new or different kind of
hydrogen monitors can be relaxed without core damage. accident from any accident previously
degrading the plant emergency response. The Category 3 hydrogen monitors are adequate evaluated?
emergency response, in this sense, refers to to provide rapid assessment of current Response: No.
the methodologies used in ascertaining the reactor core conditions and the direction of The changes affect the Limiting Condition
condition of the reactor core, mitigating the degradation while effectively responding to for Operation for Refueling Operations—
consequences of an accident, assessing and the event in order to mitigate the Instrumentation, in particular, the source
projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, consequences of the accident. The intent of range neutron flux detectors. The source
and establishing protective action the requirements established as a result of the range neutron flux detectors will continue to
recommendations to be communicated to TMI, Unit 2 accident can be adequately met operate in the same manner as previously
offsite authorities. Classification of the considered. Accident initial conditions and
without reliance on safety-related hydrogen
hydrogen monitors as Category 3, and assumptions remain as previously analyzed.
monitors.
removal of the hydrogen monitors from TS The proposed changes do not introduce
Therefore, this change does not involve a
will not prevent an accident management any new or different accident initiators.
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
strategy through the use of the severe Therefore, the proposed changes do not
accident management guidelines, the Removal of hydrogen monitoring from TS
will not result in a significant reduction in create the possibility of a new or different
emergency plan, the emergency operating kind of accident from any previously
procedures, and site survey monitoring that their functionality, reliability, and
availability. evaluated.
support modification of emergency plan 3. Does the proposed change involve a
protective action recommendations. The NRC staff proposes to determine that
the amendment request involves no significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen Response: No.
recombiner requirements and relaxation of significant hazards consideration.
The changes affect the Limiting Condition
the hydrogen monitor requirements, Attorney for licensee: Mary E. for Operation for Refueling Operations—
including removal of these requirements O’Reilly, Attorney, FirstEnergy Instrumentation; in particular, the source
from the TS, does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or the
Corporation, 76 South Main Street, range neutron detectors. These detectors have
consequences of any accident previously Akron, OH 44308. no control functions, and are not credited in
evaluated. NRC Section Chief: Gene Y. Suh. mitigating the consequences of any accident.
The source range neutron detectors are not
Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating associated with a safety limit. In addition, the
Create the Possibility of a New or Different Company, Docket No. 50–346, Davis- proposed changes to TS will not result in
Kind of Accident from any Previously Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, design changes to the source range neutron
Evaluated detectors or in changes to how the source
Ottawa County, Ohio
The elimination of the hydrogen range detectors are used. Therefore, the
recombiner [dilution/purge system for Davis Date of amendment request: proposed changes will not involve a
Besse] requirements and relaxation of the December 20, 2004. significant reduction in a margin of safety.
hydrogen monitor requirements, including Description of amendment request: The NRC staff has reviewed the
removal of these requirements from TS, will The proposed change would revise
not result in any failure mode not previously licensee’s analysis and, based on this
Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.9.2, review, it appears that the three
analyzed. The hydrogen recombiner ‘‘Refueling Operations—
[dilution/purge system for Davis Besse] and standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
hydrogen monitor equipment was intended Instrumentation,’’ concerning source satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
to mitigate a design-basis hydrogen release. range neutron flux monitors to be proposes to determine that the
The hydrogen recombiner [dilution/purge consistent with Improved Standard amendment request involves no
system for Davis Besse] and hydrogen Technical Specifications. significant hazards consideration.
monitor equipment are not considered Basis for proposed no significant
accident precursors, nor does their existence
Attorney for licensee: Mary E.
hazards consideration determination: O’Reilly, Attorney, FirstEnergy
or elimination have any adverse impact on As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
the pre-accident state of the reactor core or Corporation, 76 South Main Street,
post accident confinement of radionuclides
licensee has provided its analysis of the Akron, OH 44308.
within the containment building. issue of no significant hazards NRC Section Chief: Gene Y. Suh.
Therefore, this change does not create the consideration, which is presented
possibility of a new or different kind of below: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
accident from any previously evaluated. Company, Docket No. 50–346, Davis-
1. Does the proposed change involve a
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not significant increase in the probability or
Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1,
Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin consequences of an accident previously Ottawa County, Ohio
of Safety evaluated? Date of amendment request: January
The elimination of the hydrogen Response: No. 5, 2005.
recombiner [dilution/purge system for Davis The changes affect the Limiting Condition Description of amendment request:
Besse] requirements and relaxation of the for Operation [LCO] for Refueling The license amendment would revise
hydrogen monitor requirements, including Operations—Instrumentation, in particular, Technical Specification 3/4.3.2.1,
removal of these requirements from TS, in the LCO sections pertaining to the source
range neutron flux detectors will be changed
‘‘Safety Features Actuation System
light of existing plant equipment,
instrumentation, procedures, and programs to be more like the corresponding sections in [SFAS] Instrumentation,’’ to permit a
that provide effective mitigation of and the Improved Standard Technical single inoperable SFAS functional unit
recovery from reactor accidents, results in a Specifications. The source range neutron flux to be placed in a bypassed condition
neutral impact to the margin of safety. detectors have no control functions and are indefinitely.
Basis for proposed no significant Response: No. 1. Does the proposed change involve a
hazards consideration determination: The proposed change does not alter the significant increase in the probability or
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the SFAS design function or the manner in consequences of an accident previously
which that function is performed. Under the evaluated?
licensee has provided its analysis of the
proposed change, the SFAS will continue to Response: No.
issue of no significant hazards perform its function with a high degree of The proposed amendment would reflect
consideration, which is presented reliability. No new failure modes or accident use of the Electric Power Research Institute
below: initiators are created by the proposed change. (EPRI) Topical Report ‘‘Tornado Missile Risk
1. Does the proposed change involve a Therefore, the proposed change does not Evaluation Methodology’’ (EPRI NP–2005),
significant increase in the probability or create the possibility of a new or different Volumes I and II. As noted in the NRC Safety
consequences of an accident previously kind of accident from any previously Evaluation on this report dated October 26,
evaluated? evaluated. 1983, ‘‘The current licensing criteria
Response: No. 3. Does the proposed change involve a governing tornado missile protection are
The proposed change would permit a significant reduction in a margin of safety? contained in Standard Review Plan (SRP)
single SFAS instrument string functional unit Response: No. Sections 3.5.1.4 and 3.5.2. These criteria
to be placed in bypass indefinitely. The The proposed change would allow generally specify that safety-related systems
primary function of SFAS is to monitor operation of the SFAS in a condition with be provided positive tornado missile
station conditions and actuate the engineered reduced redundancy from what is currently protection (barriers) from the maximum
safety features when needed in order to required by the Technical Specifications. credible tornado threat. However, SRP
prevent or limit fission product and energy Operation of the SFAS with reduced Section 3.5.1.4 includes acceptance criteria
release from the core, to isolate the redundancy was evaluated against the design permitting relaxation of the above
containment vessel, and to initiate the criteria to which the system was designed. deterministic guidance, if it can be
operation of the Engineered Safety Features This evaluation shows that with the SFAS in demonstrated that the probability of damage
(ESF) equipment in the event of a loss-of- the conditions permitted by the proposed to unprotected essential safety-related
coolant accident (LOCA). change, the SFAS still satisfies all the features is sufficiently small.’’
The SFAS is a possible accident initiator applicable design criteria, including the ‘‘Certain Operating License (OL) applicants
in that an inadvertent system level actuation single failure criterion. Therefore, the and operating reactor licensees have chosen
could result in a transient or accident. The proposed change does not involve a to demonstrate compliance with tornado
existing Technical Specification significant reduction in a margin of safety. missile protection criteria for certain portions
requirements for SFAS allow operation of the plant * * * by providing a
indefinitely with a single SFAS functional The NRC staff has reviewed the probabilistic analysis which is intended to
unit in trip, which results in a 1-out-of-3 licensee’s analysis and, based on this show a sufficiently low risk associated with
channel logic. In this condition, the spurious review, it appears that the three tornado missiles. Some* * * have utilized
actuation in one of the three remaining standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are the tornado missile probabilistic risk
corresponding functional unit would result satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff assessment (PRA) methodology developed
in an inadvertent system level actuation. by’’ EPRI in the Topical Report listed above.
proposes to determine that the
Under the proposed change, indefinite The NRC noted that this report ‘‘can be
operation in a 2-out-of-3, 1-out-of-3, or 1-out- amendment request involves no
utilized when assessing the need for positive
of-2 channel logic would be allowed. The significant hazards consideration. tornado missile protection for specific safety-
likelihood of a spurious system level Attorney for licensee: Mary E. related plant features.’’ This methodology has
actuation for any of the configurations O’Reilly, Attorney, FirstEnergy subsequently been utilized in nuclear power
allowed under the proposed change is no Corporation, 76 South Main Street, plant licensing actions.
greater than the likelihood of spurious Akron, OH 44308. As permitted in NRC Standard Review
actuation under the 1-out-of-3 channel logic NRC Section Chief: Gene Y. Suh. Plan (NUREG–0800) sections, the total
allowed under the existing Technical probability will be maintained below an
Specification requirements. Therefore, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating allowable level, i.e., an acceptance criteria
operation of the SFAS actuation from that Company, Docket No. 50–346, Davis- threshold, which reflects an extremely low
permitted by the existing Technical Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, probability of occurrence. The DBNPS
Specifications.
Ottawa County, Ohio [Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station]
Under the proposed change, the SFAS will
approach assumes that if the probability
continue to perform this function with a high Date of amendment request: January calculation result for the total plant identifies
level of reliability. The proposed change 11, 2005.
would allow operation of the SFAS in a that the cumulative probability of tornado
Description of amendment request: missiles striking an unprotected portion of a
condition with reduced redundancy from The proposed amendment would revise
what is currently required by the Technical safety system or component required for safe
Specifications. Operation of the SFAS with
the Updated Safety Analysis Report shutdown in the event of a tornado exceeds
reduced redundancy was evaluated against (USAR) by modifying the design 10¥6 per year, then unique missile barriers
the design criteria to which the system was requirements for protection from would need to be installed to lower the total
designed. The design criteria applicable to tornado missiles. Specifically, the probability below the acceptance criteria of
the SFAS, including the single failure proposed amendment would allow 10¥6 per year.
criterion, continue to be met. The proposed With respect to the probability of
certain structures, systems, and
change does not prevent the SFAS from occurrence of an accident previously
components that are not currently evaluated in the USAR, the possibility of a
mitigating the consequences of previously
provided with physical protection from tornado reaching the DBNPS site and causing
analyzed accidents.
The proposed change would not increase tornado-induced missiles to be damage to plant structures, systems, and
the likelihood of an inadvertent SFAS evaluated for acceptability based on the components is an event considered in the
actuation. The proposed change would not Electrical Power Research Institute USAR. The changes being proposed herein
prevent the SFAS from mitigating the ‘‘Tornado Missile Risk Evaluation do not affect the probability that the natural
consequences of previously analyzed Methodology’’ (TORMIS). phenomena (a tornado) will reach the plant,
accidents. Therefore, the proposed change Basis for proposed no significant but they do, from a licensing basis
does not involve a significant increase in the hazards consideration determination: perspective, affect the probability that
probability or consequences of an accident missiles generated by the winds of the
previously evaluated.
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the tornado might strike certain plant systems or
2. Does the proposed change create the licensee has provided its analysis of the components. As recently determined, there
possibility of a new or different kind of issue of no significant hazards are a limited number of safety-related
accident from any accident previously consideration, which is presented components that could theoretically be
evaluated? below: struck by a tornado generated missile. The
total (cumulative) probability of a tornado changes associated with this license As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an
missile striking an unprotected component amendment do not involve a significant analysis of the issue of no significant
will be maintained below an extremely low reduction in the margin of safety. hazards consideration is presented
acceptance criteria to ensure overall plant
The NRC staff has reviewed the below:
safety. Due to the extremely low probability
of a tornado missile impacting an essential licensee’s analysis and, based on this Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not
component, the small increase in the review, it appears that the three Involve a Significant Increase in the
probability of accident initiation is not standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Probability or Consequences of an Accident
considered significant. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Previously Evaluated.
With respect to the consequences of an proposes to determine that the The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines
accident previously evaluated, there is an amendment request involves no a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident
extremely low probability of a malfunction of significant hazards consideration. (LOCA) hydrogen release, and eliminates
an unprotected essential component due to Attorney for licensee: Mary E. requirements for hydrogen control systems to
tornado missile impact. Due to (1) the O’Reilly, Attorney, FirstEnergy mitigate such a release. The installation of
extremely low probability of a tornado hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge
missile striking essential equipment as
Corporation, 76 South Main Street,
Akron, OH 44308. systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was
calculated by TORMIS, and (2) the low intended to address the limited quantity and
probability that any tornado missile strikes NRC Section Chief: Gene Y. Suh.
rate of hydrogen generation that was
would cause sufficient damage to prevent FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The
essential equipment from performing its Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry Commission has found that this hydrogen
accident-mitigating function, a loss of release is not risk-significant because the
accident mitigation capability is not
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Lake
design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not
considered credible. Therefore, the County, Ohio
contribute to the conditional probability of a
radiological consequences of accidents are Date of amendment request: large release up to approximately 24 hours
not significantly affected. September 10, 2004. after the onset of core damage. In addition,
The proposed change is not considered to Description of amendment request: these systems were ineffective at mitigating
constitute a significant increase in the The proposed amendment would delete hydrogen releases from risk-significant
probability of occurrence or the the requirements from the technical accident sequences that could threaten
consequences of an accident, due to the containment integrity.
extremely low total probability of a tornado
specifications (TS) to maintain
With the elimination of the design-basis
missile strike and thus an extremely low hydrogen recombiners and hydrogen LOCA hydrogen release, hydrogen monitors
probability of a radiological release. monitors. Licensees were generally are no longer required to mitigate design-
Therefore, the proposed change does not required to implement upgrades as basis accidents and, therefore, the hydrogen
involve a significant increase in the described in NUREG–0737, monitors do not meet the definition of a
probability or consequences of previously ‘‘Clarification of TMI [Three Mile safety-related component as defined in 10
evaluated accidents. Island] Action Plan Requirements,’’ and CFR 50.2. Category 1 in RG 1.97 is intended
2. Does the proposed change create the Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.97, for key variables that most directly indicate
possibility of a new or different kind of ‘‘Instrumentation for Light-Water- the accomplishment of a safety function for
accident from any accident previously design-basis accident events. The hydrogen
evaluated?
Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess monitors no longer meet the definition of
Response: No. Plant and Environs Conditions During Category 1 in RG 1.97. As part of the
The possibility of a tornado reaching the and Following an Accident.’’ rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44, the
DBNPS site is a design basis event Implementation of these upgrades was Commission found that Category 3, as
considered in the USAR. This change an outcome of the lessons learned from defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate
involves recognition of the acceptability of the accident that occurred at TMI, Unit categorization for the hydrogen monitors
performing tornado missile probability 2. Requirements related to combustible because the monitors are required to
calculations in accordance with established gas control were imposed by Order for diagnose the course of beyond design-basis
regulatory guidance. The change therefore many facilities and were added to or accidents.
deals with an established design basis event The regulatory requirements for the
(the tornado). Therefore, the proposed change
included in the TS for nuclear power hydrogen monitors can be relaxed without
would not contribute to the possibility of a reactors currently licensed to operate. degrading the plant emergency response. The
new or different kind of accident from those The revised Title 10 of the Code of emergency response, in this sense, refers to
previously analyzed. Federal Regulations (10 CFR) section the methodologies used in ascertaining the
3. Does the proposed change involve a 50.44, ‘‘Standards for Combustible Gas condition of the reactor core, mitigating the
significant reduction in a margin of safety? Control System in Light-Water-Cooled consequences of an accident, assessing and
Response: No. Power Reactors,’’ eliminated the projecting offsite releases of radioactivity,
This request does not involve a significant requirements for hydrogen recombiners and establishing protective action
reduction in a margin of safety. The existing and related vent and purge systems and recommendations to be communicated to
licensing basis for the DBNPS with respect to offsite authorities. Classification of the
the design basis event of a tornado reaching
relaxed safety classifications and hydrogen monitors as Category 3, and
the plant is to provide positive missile licensee commitments to certain design removal of the hydrogen monitors from TS
barriers for all systems and components and qualification criteria for hydrogen will not prevent an accident management
required for safe shutdown in the event of a and oxygen monitors. strategy through the use of the severe
tornado. With the change, it will be The NRC staff issued a notice of accident management guidelines, the
recognized that there is an extremely low availability of a model no significant emergency plan, the emergency operating
probability, below an established acceptance hazards consideration determination for procedures, and site survey monitoring that
limit, that a limited subset of these systems referencing in license amendment support modification of emergency plan
and components could be struck. The change applications in the Federal Register on protective action recommendations.
to missile protection based on extremely low September 25, 2003 (68 FR 55416). The Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen
probability (less than 1 x 10¥6 per year recombiner requirements and relaxation of
cumulative strike probability) of occurrence
licensee affirmed the applicability of the the hydrogen monitor requirements,
of tornado generated missile strikes on model no significant hazards including removal of these requirements
portions of these systems and components is consideration determination in its from the TS, does not involve a significant
not considered to constitute a significant application dated September 10, 2004. increase in the probability or the
decrease in the margin of safety due to that Basis for proposed no significant consequences of any accident previously
extremely low probability. Therefore, the hazards consideration determination: evaluated.
Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Florida Power Corporation, et al., equipment, operating practices or safety
Create the Possibility of a New or Different Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 3 analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the
Kind of Accident From Any Previously Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus proposed change does not involve a
Evaluated significant reduction in the margin of safety.
County, Florida
The elimination of the hydrogen Based upon the reasoning presented
recombiner requirements and relaxation of Date of amendment request:
November 17, 2004. above, the requested change does not
the hydrogen monitor requirements, involve a significant hazards
including removal of these requirements Description of amendment request:
The requested change would delete consideration.
from TS, will not result in any failure mode
not previously analyzed. The hydrogen Technical Specification (TS) 5.7.1.1.a, Attorney for licensee: David T.
recombiner and hydrogen monitor equipment ‘‘Occupational Radiation Exposure Conley, Associate General Counsel II—
was intended to mitigate a design-basis Report,’’ and TS 5.7.1.2, ‘‘Monthly Legal Department, Progress Energy
hydrogen release. The hydrogen recombiner Operating Reports.’’ Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box
and hydrogen monitor equipment are not The NRC staff issued a notice of 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
considered accident precursors, nor does availability of a model no significant NRC Section Chief: Michael L.
their existence or elimination have any hazards consideration (NSHC) Marshall.
adverse impact on the pre-accident state of determination for referencing in license
the reactor core or post accident confinement R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC,
amendment applications in the Federal Docket No. 50–244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear
of radionuclides within the containment
building.
Register on June 23, 2004 (69 FR 35067). Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Therefore, this change does not create the The licensee affirmed the applicability
of the model NSHC determination in its Date of amendment request: August 6,
accident from any previously evaluated. application dated November 17, 2004. 2004.
Basis for proposed no significant Description of amendment request:
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not
hazards consideration determination: The proposed amendment deletes the
Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin
of Safety As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an requirements from the Technical
analysis of the issue of no significant Specifications (TSs) to maintain
The elimination of the hydrogen hydrogen recombiners and hydrogen
recombiner requirements and relaxation of hazards consideration is presented
the hydrogen monitor requirements, below: monitors. Licensees were generally
including removal of these requirements required to implement upgrades as
1. Does the proposed change involve a
from TS, in light of existing plant equipment, significant increase in the probability or described in NUREG–0737,
instrumentation, procedures, and programs consequences of an accident previously ‘‘Clarification of TMI [Three Mile
that provide effective mitigation of and evaluated? Island] Action Plan Requirements,’’ and
recovery from reactor accidents, results in a Response: No. Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.97,
neutral impact to the margin of safety. The proposed change eliminates the ‘‘Instrumentation for Light-Water-
The installation of hydrogen recombiners Technical Specifications (TS) reporting Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess
and/or vent and purge systems required by requirements to provide a monthly operating Plant and Environs Conditions During
10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address report of shutdown experience and operating and Following an Accident.’’
the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen statistics if the equivalent data is submitted
Implementation of these upgrades was
generation that was postulated from a design- using an industry electronic database. It also
eliminates the TS reporting requirement for an outcome of the lessons learned from
basis LOCA. The Commission has found that
this hydrogen release is not risk-significant an annual occupational radiation exposure the accident that occurred at TMI, Unit
because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen report, which provides information beyond 2. Requirements related to combustible
release does not contribute to the conditional that specified in NRC regulations. The gas control were imposed by Order for
probability of a large release up to proposed change involves no changes to many facilities and were added to or
approximately 24 hours after the onset of plant systems or accident analyses. As such, included in the TSs for nuclear power
core damage. the change is administrative in nature and reactors currently licensed to operate.
Category 3 hydrogen monitors are adequate does not affect initiators of analyzed events The revised 10 CFR 50.44, ‘‘Standards
to provide rapid assessment of current or assumed mitigation of accidents or
for Combustible Gas Control System in
reactor core conditions and the direction of transients. Therefore, the proposed change
does not involve a significant increase in the Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactors,’’
degradation while effectively responding to eliminated the requirements for
the event in order to mitigate the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. hydrogen recombiners and relaxed
consequences of the accident. The intent of
the requirements established as a result of the 2. Does the proposed change create the safety classifications and licensee
TMI, Unit 2 accident can be adequately met possibility of a new or different kind of commitments to certain design and
accident from any accident previously qualification criteria for hydrogen and
evaluated? oxygen monitors.
monitors.
Response: No. The NRC staff issued a notice of
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant, add any new
availability of a model no significant
Removal of hydrogen monitoring from TS hazards consideration determination for
equipment, or require any existing
will not result in a significant reduction in equipment to be operated in a manner referencing in license amendment
their functionality, reliability, and different from the present design. Therefore, applications in the Federal Register on
availability. the proposed change does not create the September 25, 2003 (68 FR 55416). The
The NRC staff proposes to determine
possibility of a new or different kind of licensee affirmed the applicability of the
accident from any accident previously model NSHC determination in its
that the amendment request involves no evaluated.
significant hazards consideration. application dated August 6, 2004.
3. Does the proposed change involve a Basis for proposed no significant
Attorney for licensee: David W. significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an
Corporation, 76 South Main Street, This is an administrative change to
reporting requirements of plant operating analysis of the issue of no significant
Akron, OH 44308. information and occupational radiation hazards consideration is presented
NRC Section Chief: Gene Y. Suh. exposure data, and has no effect on plant below:
Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC,
Involve a Significant Increase in the Create the Possibility of a New or Different Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, Nine
Probability or Consequences of an Accident Kind of Accident from any Previously Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1
Previously Evaluated Evaluated and 2 (NMP1 and NMP2), Oswego
The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines The elimination of the hydrogen County, New York
a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident recombiner requirements and relaxation of
(LOCA) hydrogen release, and eliminates the hydrogen monitor requirements, Date of amendment request: January
requirements for hydrogen control systems to including removal of these requirements 24, 2005.
mitigate such a release. The installation of from TS, will not result in any failure mode Description of amendment request:
hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge not previously analyzed. The hydrogen The licensee proposed amendments to
systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was recombiner and hydrogen monitor equipment delete Sections 6.6.1 and 5.6.1,
intended to address the limited quantity and was intended to mitigate a design-basis ‘‘Occupational Radiation Exposure
rate of hydrogen generation that was hydrogen release. The hydrogen recombiner
Report,’’ and Sections 6.6.4 and 5.6.4,
postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The and hydrogen monitor equipment are not
considered accident precursors, nor does ‘‘Monthly Operating Reports,’’ from the
Commission has found that this hydrogen NMP1 and NMP2 Technical
their existence or elimination have any
release is not risk-significant because the Specifications, respectively. The NRC
adverse impact on the pre-accident state of
design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not the reactor core or post accident confinement staff issued a notice of availability of a
contribute to the conditional probability of a of radionuclides within the containment model no significant hazards
large release up to approximately 24 hours building. consideration (NSHC) determination for
after the onset of core damage. In addition, Therefore, this change does not create the referencing in license amendment
these systems were ineffective at mitigating possibility of a new or different kind of applications in the Federal Register on
hydrogen releases from risk-significant accident from any previously evaluated.
accident sequences that could threaten
June 23, 2004 (69 FR 35067). The
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not licensee affirmed the applicability of the
containment integrity.
Involve a Significant Reduction in [a] Margin model NSHC determination in its
With the elimination of the design-basis of Safety
LOCA hydrogen release, hydrogen monitors application dated January 24, 2005.
are no longer required to mitigate design- The elimination of the hydrogen Basis for proposed no significant
basis accidents and, therefore, the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of hazards consideration determination:
the hydrogen monitor requirements, As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
monitors do not meet the definition of a
including removal of these requirements
safety-related component as defined in 10
from TS, in light of existing plant equipment,
licensee has provided its analysis of the
CFR 50.2. Category 1 in RG 1.97 is intended instrumentation, procedures, and programs issue of no significant hazards
for key variables that most directly indicate that provide effective mitigation of and consideration by referencing the model
the accomplishment of a safety function for recovery from reactor accidents, results in a NSHC analysis published by the NRC
design-basis accident events. The hydrogen neutral impact to the margin of safety. staff. The model NSHC analysis is
monitors no longer meet the definition of The installation of hydrogen recombiners reproduced below:
Category 1 in RG 1.97. As part of the and/or vent and purge systems required by
rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44 the 1. Does the proposed change involve a
10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address
significant increase in the probability or
Commission found that Category 3, as the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen
consequences of an accident previously
defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate generation that was postulated from a design-
evaluated?
categorization for the hydrogen monitors basis LOCA. The Commission has found that
Response: No.
because the monitors are required to this hydrogen release is not risk-significant
The proposed change eliminates the
diagnose the course of beyond design-basis because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen
Technical Specifications (TSs) reporting
accidents. release does not contribute to the conditional
requirements to provide a monthly operating
The regulatory requirements for the probability of a large release up to
report of shutdown experience and operating
hydrogen monitors can be relaxed without approximately 24 hours after the onset of
statistics if the equivalent data is submitted
degrading the plant emergency response. The core damage.
using an industry electronic database. It also
emergency response, in this sense, refers to Category 3 hydrogen monitors are adequate
eliminates the TS reporting requirement for
the methodologies used in ascertaining the to provide rapid assessment of current
an annual occupational radiation exposure
reactor core conditions and the direction of
condition of the reactor core, mitigating the report, which provides information beyond
degradation while effectively responding to
consequences of an accident, assessing and that specified in NRC regulations. The
the event in order to mitigate the
projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, proposed change involves no changes to
consequences of the accident. The intent of
and establishing protective action plant systems or accident analyses. As such,
the requirements established as a result of the
recommendations to be communicated to the change is administrative in nature and
TMI, Unit 2 accident can be adequately met
offsite authorities. Classification of the does not affect initiators of analyzed events
hydrogen monitors as Category 3, and or assumed mitigation of accidents or
monitors.
removal of the hydrogen monitors from TS transients. Therefore, the proposed change
will not prevent an accident management does not involve a significant increase in the
strategy through the use of the severe probability or consequences of an accident
Removal of hydrogen monitoring from TS
accident management guidelines (SAMGs), previously evaluated.
will not result in a significant reduction in
2. Does the proposed change create the
the emergency plan (EP), the emergency their functionality, reliability, and
operating procedures (EOP), and site survey availability.
accident from any accident previously
monitoring that support modification of evaluated?
emergency plan protective action The NRC staff proposes to determine
Response: No.
recommendations (PARs). that the amendment request involves no The proposed change does not involve a
Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen significant hazards consideration. physical alteration of the plant, add any new
recombiner requirements and relaxation of Attorney for licensee: Daniel F. equipment, or require any existing
the hydrogen monitor requirements, Stenger, Ballard Spahr Andrews & equipment to be operated in a manner
including removal of these requirements different from the present design. Therefore,
Ingersoll, LLP, 601 13th Street, NW.,
from TS, does not involve a significant the proposed change does not create the
increase in the probability or the
Suite 1000 South, Washington, DC
consequences of any accident previously 20005. accident from any accident previously
evaluated. NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer. evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a 55416). The licensee affirmed the Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen
significant reduction in a margin of safety? applicability of the model NSHC recombiner requirements and relaxation of
Response: No. determination in its application dated the hydrogen monitor requirements,
This is an administrative change to including removal of these requirements
October 28, 2004.
reporting requirements of plant operating from TS, does not involve a significant
information and occupational radiation
Basis for proposed no significant increase in the probability or the
exposure data, and has no effect on plant hazards consideration determination: consequences of any accident previously
equipment, operating practices or safety As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an evaluated.
analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the analysis of the issue of no significant Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not
proposed change does not involve a hazards consideration is presented Create the Possibility of a New or Different
significant reduction in the margin of safety. below: Kind of Accident From Any Previously
The NRC staff has reviewed the Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Evaluated
licensee’s analysis and, based on this Involve a Significant Increase in the The elimination of the hydrogen
review, it appears that the three Probability or Consequences of an Accident recombiner requirements and relaxation of
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Previously Evaluated the hydrogen monitor requirements,
The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines including removal of these requirements
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident from TS, will not result in any failure mode
proposes to determine that the not previously analyzed. The hydrogen
amendment request involves no (LOCA) hydrogen release, and eliminates
requirements for hydrogen control systems to recombiner and hydrogen monitor equipment
significant hazards consideration. mitigate such a release. The installation of was intended to mitigate a design-basis
Attorney for licensee: Mark J. hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge hydrogen release. The hydrogen recombiner
Wetterhahn, Esquire, Winston & Strawn, systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was and hydrogen monitor equipment are not
1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC intended to address the limited quantity and considered accident precursors, nor does
20005–3502. rate of hydrogen generation that was their existence or elimination have any
postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The adverse impact on the pre-accident state of
NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer.
Commission has found that this hydrogen the reactor core or post accident confinement
TXU Generation Company LP, Docket release is not risk-significant because the of radionuclides within the containment
Nos. 50–445 and 50–446, Comanche design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not building.
Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and contribute to the conditional probability of a Therefore, this change does not create the
large release up to approximately 24 hours possibility of a new or different kind of
2, Somervell County, Texas
after the onset of core damage. In addition, accident from any previously evaluated.
Date of amendment request: October these systems were ineffective at mitigating Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not
28, 2004. hydrogen releases from risk-significant Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin
Brief description of amendments: The accident sequences that could threaten of Safety
proposed amendment deletes the containment integrity. The elimination of the hydrogen
requirements from the Technical With the elimination of the design-basis recombiner requirements and relaxation of
Specifications (TS) to maintain LOCA hydrogen release, hydrogen monitors the hydrogen monitor requirements,
hydrogen recombiners and hydrogen are no longer required to mitigate design- including removal of these requirements
monitors. Licensees were generally basis accidents and, therefore, the hydrogen from TS, in light of existing plant equipment,
monitors do not meet the definition of a instrumentation, procedures, and programs
required to implement upgrades as safety-related component as defined in 10
described in NUREG–0737, that provide effective mitigation of and
CFR 50.2. Category 1 in RG 1.97 is intended recovery from reactor accidents, results in a
‘‘Clarification of TMI [Three Mile for key variables that most directly indicate neutral impact to the margin of safety.
Island] Action Plan Requirements,’’ and the accomplishment of a safety function for The installation of hydrogen recombiners
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.97, design-basis accident events. The hydrogen and/or vent and purge systems required by
‘‘Instrumentation for Light-Water- monitors no longer meet the definition of 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address
Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Category 1 in RG 1.97. As part of the the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen
Plant and Environs Conditions During rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44 the generation that was postulated from a design-
and Following an Accident.’’ Commission found that Category 3, as basis LOCA. The Commission has found that
defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate this hydrogen release is not risk-significant
Implementation of these upgrades was categorization for the hydrogen monitors
an outcome of the lessons learned from because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen
because the monitors are required to release does not contribute to the conditional
the accident that occurred at TMI Unit diagnose the course of beyond design-basis probability of a large release up to
2. Requirements related to combustible accidents. approximately 24 hours after the onset of
gas control were imposed by Order for The regulatory requirements for the core damage.
many facilities and were added to or hydrogen monitors can be relaxed without Category 3 hydrogen monitors are adequate
included in the TS for nuclear power degrading the plant emergency response. The to provide rapid assessment of current
reactors currently licensed to operate. emergency response, in this sense, refers to reactor core conditions and the direction of
The revised 10 CFR 50.44, ‘‘Standards the methodologies used in ascertaining the degradation while effectively responding to
condition of the reactor core, mitigating the the event in order to mitigate the
for Combustible Gas Control System in consequences of an accident, assessing and
Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactors,’’ consequences of the accident. The intent of
projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, the requirements established as a result of the
eliminated the requirements for and establishing protective action TMI Unit 2 accident can be adequately met
hydrogen recombiners and relaxed recommendations to be communicated to without reliance on safety-related hydrogen
safety classifications and licensee offsite authorities. Classification of the monitors.
commitments to certain design and hydrogen monitors as Category 3, and Therefore, this change does not involve a
qualification criteria for hydrogen and removal of the hydrogen monitors from TS significant reduction in the margin of safety.
oxygen monitors. will not prevent an accident management Removal of hydrogen monitoring from TS
The NRC staff issued a notice of strategy through the use of the severe will not result in a significant reduction in
accident management guidelines (SAMGs), their functionality, reliability, and
availability of a model no significant the emergency plan (EP), the emergency
hazards consideration (NSHC) availability.
operating procedures (EOP), and site survey
determination for referencing in license monitoring that support modification of The NRC staff proposes to determine
amendment applications in the Federal emergency plan protective action that the amendment request involves no
Register on September 25, 2003 (68 FR recommendations (PARs). significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: George L. Edgar, fourth interval at Surry Power Station Date of publication of individual
Esq., Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, 1800 provides adequate assurance that the safety- notice in Federal Register: February 1,
M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. related pumps and valves will continue to 2005 (70 FR 5226).
NRC Section Chief: Michael K. Webb perform their intended safety function. This
is an administrative change in nature and as
Expiration date of individual notice:
(Acting). March 3, 2005 (public comments) and
such does not involve a significant reduction
Virginia Electric and Power Company, in the margin of safety. April 4, 2005 (hearing requests).
Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry The NRC staff has reviewed the Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry Facility Operating Licenses
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
County, Virginia
review, it appears that the three During the period since publication of
Date of amendment request: standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are the last biweekly notice, the
November 4, 2004. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Commission has issued the following
Description of amendment request: proposes to determine that the amendments. The Commission has
The proposed changes would relocate amendment request involves no determined for each of these
the inservice testing requirements, significant hazards consideration. amendments that the application
remove the inservice inspection Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lillian M. complies with the standards and
requirements, and add a Bases Control Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
Program to the Administrative Controls Resources Services, Inc., Millstone of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
section of the Technical Specifications Power Station, Building 475, 5th Floor, Commission’s rules and regulations.
(TS). Rope Ferry Road, Rt. 156, Waterford,
Basis for proposed no significant The Commission has made appropriate
Connecticut 06385. findings as required by the Act and the
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the NRC Section Chief: John A. Nakoski. Commission’s rules and regulations in
licensee has provided its analysis of the 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in
Previously Published Notices of
issue of no significant hazards the license amendment.
Consideration of Issuance of
consideration, which is presented Amendments to Facility Operating Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
below: Licenses, Proposed No Significant Amendment to Facility Operating
Hazards Consideration Determination, License, Proposed No Significant
1. Operation of Surry Units 1 and 2 in Hazards Consideration Determination,
accordance with the proposed Technical and Opportunity for a Hearing
Specifications change does not involve a
and Opportunity for A Hearing in
significant increase in the probability or The following notices were previously connection with these actions was
consequences of an accident previously published as separate individual published in the Federal Register as
evaluated. notices. The notice content was the indicated.
The proposed change is administrative in same as above. They were published as Unless otherwise indicated, the
nature, and station operations are not being individual notices either because time Commission has determined that these
affected. The ASME [American Society of did not allow the Commission to wait amendments satisfy the criteria for
Mechanical Engineers] Code requirements for this biweekly notice or because the
are established, reviewed and approved by categorical exclusion in accordance
ASME, the industry and ultimately endorsed
action involved exigent circumstances. with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
by the NRC for inclusion into 10 CFR 50.55a. They are repeated here because the to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
Updates to the ASME Code reflect advances biweekly notice lists all amendments impact statement or environmental
in technology and consider information issued or proposed to be issued assessment need be prepared for these
obtained from plant operating experience to involving no significant hazards amendments. If the Commission has
provide enhanced inspection and testing. consideration. prepared an environmental assessment
Thus, the proposed change only modifies TS
For details, see the individual notice under the special circumstances
to appropriately reference the recently NRC
approved Inservice Testing Program for the in the Federal Register on the day and provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has
fourth interval at Surry Power Station. page cited. This notice does not extend made a determination based on that
Consequently, the probability or the notice period of the original notice. assessment, it is so indicated.
consequences of an accident previously For further details with respect to the
evaluated are not increased. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No.
50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), action see (1) the applications for
2. The proposed Technical Specifications amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
change does not create the possibility of a Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
new or different kind of accident from any
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
accident previously evaluated. Date of amendment request: Evaluation and/or Environmental
As noted above, the proposed change is September 15, 2004. Assessment as indicated. All of these
administrative in nature, and no new Brief description of amendment items are available for public inspection
accident precursors are being introduced. request: In accordance with Technical at the Commission’s Public Document
Since the inservice testing will continue to be Specification Task Force (TSTF) 285, Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
performed in accordance with an NRC Charging Pump Swap Low-Temperature North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555
approved program, adequate assurance is
provided to ensure the safety-related pumps
Over-Pressurization Allowance, LCO Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
and valves would operate as required. No 3.4.12, Cold Overpressure Mitigation Maryland. Publicly available records
new testing is required that could create a System (COMS), is being revised to will be accessible from the Agencywide
new or different type of accident. modify and relocate two notes in the Documents Access and Management
Consequently, the proposed change does not WBN Technical Specifications. The Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic
create the possibility of a new or different changes are all administrative, except a Reading Room on the Internet at the
kind of accident from any accident change which would allow two charging NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/
previously evaluated. pumps to be made capable of injecting reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not
3. The proposed Technical Specifications
change does not involve a significant into the Reactor Coolant System to have access to ADAMS or if there are
reduction in a margin of safety. support pump swap operations for a problems in accessing the documents
Performing inservice testing of pumps and period not to exceed one hour instead located in ADAMS, contact the PDR
valves to the NRC approved program for the of the currently allowed 15 minutes. Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209,
(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to The Commission’s related evaluation Specifications to remove references to
pdr@nrc.gov. of the amendments is contained in a Safety Injection Steam Line Pressure-
Safety Evaluation dated February 2, Low.
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.,
2005. Date of issuance:
Docket No. 50–318, Calvert Cliffs No significant hazards consideration Effective date: As of the date of
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2, Calvert comments received: No. issuance and shall be implemented
County, Maryland within 30 days from the date of
Date of application of amendment: Duke Energy Corporation, et al., Docket
issuance.
September 30, 2003. Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba Amendment Nos.: 224 and 206.
Description of amendment request: Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York Renewed Facility Operating License
The amendment modifies Technical County, South Carolina Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments
Specification (TS) 4.3.1, ‘‘Criticality,’’ Date of application for amendments: revised the Technical Specifications.
adds TS 3.7.16, ‘‘Spent Fuel Pool Boron February 25, 2003, as supplemented Date of initial notice in Federal
Concentration,’’ and adds TS 3.7.17, June 9, and July 30, 2003, and Register: November 9, 2004 (69 FR
‘‘Spent Fuel Pool Storage.’’ Specifically, September 13, 2004. 64987).
the amendment increases the maximum Brief description of amendments: The The Commission’s related evaluation
enrichment limit of the fuel assemblies amendments revised the Technical of the amendments is contained in a
that can be stored in the Unit 2 spent Specifications to incorporate a Steam Safety Evaluation dated January 27,
fuel pool by taking credit for soluble Generator (SG) program that defines a 2005.
boron, burnup, and configuration performance-based approach to No significant hazards consideration
control in maintaining acceptable maintaining SG tube integrity. The SG comments received: No.
margins of subcriticality. program includes performance criteria
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Date of issuance: January 27, 2005. that define the basis for tube integrity
Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50–
Effective date: As of the date of and provides reasonable assurance that
455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle
issuance to be implemented within 30 SG tubing will remain capable of
County, Illinois; Docket Nos. STN 50–
days. fulfilling its safety function of
456 and STN 50–457, Braidwood
Amendment No.: 246. maintaining reactor coolant system
Renewed License No. DPR–69: Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County,
pressure boundary integrity. The
Amendment revised the Technical Illinois
proposed amendments add a new TS for
Specifications. SG tube integrity (3.4.18) and revise the Date of application for amendments:
Date of initial notice in Federal TS for reactor coolant operation leakage August 15, 2003, as supplemented on
Register: January 20, 2004 (69 FR (3.4.13), SG tube surveillance program April 9, 2004.
2739). (5.5.9), and SG tube inspection report Brief description of amendments: The
The Commission’s related evaluation (5.6.8). amendments revise Technical
of the amendment is contained in a Date of issuance: January 13, 2005. Specification (TS) 3.4.15, ‘‘RCS Leakage
Safety Evaluation dated January 27, Effective date: As of the date of Detection Instrumentation’’, to require
2005. issuance and shall be implemented one containment sump monitor and one
No significant hazards consideration within 60 days from the date of containment atmosphere particulate
comments received: No. issuance. radioactivity monitor to be operable in
Amendment Nos.: 218 and 212. Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Carolina Power & Light Company,
Renewed Facility Operating License Date of issuance: January 14, 2005.
Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324,
Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–52: Amendments Effective date: As of the date of
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1
revised the Technical Specifications. issuance and shall be implemented
and 2, Brunswick County, North
Date of initial notice in Federal within 30 days.
Carolina Amendment Nos.: 140, 133.
Register: July 8, 2003 (68 FR 40712).
Date of application for amendments: The supplements dated June 9, and Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
July 26, 2004, as supplemented January July 30, 2003, and September 13, 2004, 37, NPF–66, NPF–72 and NPF–77: The
26, 2005. provided additional information that amendments revised the Technical
Brief description of amendments: clarified the application, did not expand Specifications.
These amendments revise the Technical the scope of the application as originally Date of initial notice in Federal
Specifications by eliminating the noticed, and did not change the staff’s Register: October 28, 2003 (68 FR
requirements associated with hydrogen original proposed no significant hazards 61477).
and oxygen monitors. consideration determination as The Commission’s related evaluation
Date of issuance: February 2, 2005. published in the Federal Register. of the amendments is contained in a
Effective date: As of its date of The Commission’s related evaluation Safety Evaluation dated January 14,
issuance, and shall be implemented of the amendments is contained in a 2005.
within 120 days. Safety Evaluation dated January 13, No significant hazards consideration
Amendment Nos.: 234 and 261. 2005. comments received: No.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– No significant hazards consideration
71 and DPR–62: Amendments change Power and Light Company, et al., Docket
comments received: No.
the Technical Specifications. No. 50–389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2,
Date of initial notice in Federal Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. St. Lucie County, Florida
Register: August 31, 2004 (69 FR 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear Date of application for amendment:
53100). The January 26, 2005, Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg December 2, 2003, as supplemented by
supplement contained clarifying County, North Carolina letters dated September 14 and
information only and did not change the Date of application for amendments: December 10, 2004, and January 7, 2005.
initial proposed no significant hazards August 18, 2004. Brief description of amendment: This
consideration determination or expand Brief description of amendments: The amendment revised the Technical
the scope of the initial application. amendments revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) to permit operation
with a reduced reactor coolant system No significant hazards consideration No significant hazards consideration
flow corresponding to a steam generator comments received: No. comments received: No.
(SG) tube plugging level of 30-percent
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Nuclear Management Company, LLC,
per SG. This amendment also includes
Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold Docket No. 50–263, Monticello Nuclear
the transition to Westinghouse Reload Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa Generating Plant, Wright County,
Safety Evaluation Methodology (WCAP–
Date of application for amendment: Minnesota
9272).
Date of issuance: January 31, 2005. October 5, 2004. Date of application for amendment:
Effective date: As of the date of Brief description of amendment: The October 5, 2004.
issuance and shall be implemented amendment deletes Technical Brief description of amendment: The
within 60 days. Specification (TS) 5.6.1, ‘‘Occupational amendment deletes technical
Amendment No.: 138. Radiation Exposure Report,’’ and TS specification (TS) 6.7.A.2, ‘‘Requirement
Renewed Facility Operating License 5.6.4 ‘‘Monthly Operating Reports,’’ as to submit an Occupational Radiation
No. NPF–16: Amendment revised the described in the Notice of Availability Exposure Report,’’ TS 6.7.A.3,
TSs. published in the Federal Register on ‘‘Requirement to submit a Monthly
Date of initial notice in Federal June 23, 2004 (69 FR 35067). Operating Report,’’ and TS 6.7.A.6,
Register: March 18, 2004 (69 FR Date of issuance: January 31, 2005. ‘‘Requirement to report safety/relief
12873). Effective date: As of the date of
valve failures and challenges’’ as
The September 14 and December 10, issuance and shall be implemented
described in the Notice of Availability
2004, and January 7, 2005, supplements within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 256. published in the Federal Register on
did not affect the original proposed no June 23, 2004 (69 FR 35067).
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
significant hazards determination, or Date of issuance: February 1, 2005.
49: The amendment revised the
expand the scope of the request as Effective date: As of the date of
Technical Specifications.
noticed in the Federal Register. Date of initial notice in Federal issuance and shall be implemented
The Commission’s related evaluation within 90 days.
Register: November 9, 2004 (69 FR
of the amendment is contained in a 64989). Amendment No.: 142.
Safety Evaluation dated January 31, The Commission’s related evaluation Facility Operating License No. DPR–
2005. of the amendment is contained in a 22. Amendment revised the TSs.
No significant hazards consideration Safety Evaluation dated January 31, Date of initial notice in Federal
comments received: No. 2005. Register: November 9, 2004 (69 FR
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, No significant hazards consideration 64989).
Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point comments received: No. The Commission’s related evaluation
Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego Nuclear Management Company, LLC, of the amendment is contained in a
County, New York Docket No. 50–263, Monticello Nuclear Safety Evaluation dated February 1,
Date of application for amendment: Generating Plant, Wright County, 2005.
April 19, 2004, as supplemented on July Minnesota No significant hazards consideration
16, 2004. comments received: No.
Date of application for amendment:
Brief description of amendment: The January 30, 2004. Nuclear Management Company, LLC,
amendment revised Section 3/4.6.2, Brief description of amendment: The Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Plant, Van
‘‘Protective Instrumentation,’’ to amendment changes the Technical Buren County, Michigan
establish a 24-month operating cycle Specifications (TSs) to (1) clarify the
calibration frequency for the Date of application for amendment:
permissive setpoint for the source range October 5, 2004.
intermediate range monitor monitor detector-not-fully-inserted rod
instrumentation. In addition, the Brief description of amendment: The
block bypass, (2) correct a typographical amendment deletes technical
amendment authorized relocation of the error in the surveillance requirement for
limiting conditions for operation and specification 5.6.1, ‘‘Occupational
suppression pool temperature Radiation Exposure Report,’’ and TS
surveillance requirements for certain monitoring, (3) clarify the setpoint for
control rod withdrawal block 5.6.4 ‘‘Monthly Operating Reports,’’ as
the pressure suppression chamber- described in the Notice of Availability
instruments from Section 3/4.6.2 to the reactor building vacuum breakers
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. published in the Federal Register on
instrumentation, (4) clarify the June 23, 2004 (69 FR 35067).
Date of issuance: January 25, 2005. operating force requirements for the
Effective date: January 25, 2005. Date of issuance: January 10, 2005.
pressure suppression chamber-drywell Effective date: As of the date of
Amendment No.: 186. vacuum breakers surveillance test, and
Facility Operating License No. DPR– issuance and shall be implemented
(5) make corrections resulting from within 90 days.
63: Amendment revised the Technical license Amendments 130 and 132.
Specifications. Amendment No.: 220.
Date of issuance: January 28, 2005.
Date of initial notice in Federal Effective date: As of the date of Facility Operating License No. DPR–
Register: May 25, 2004 (69 FR 29769). issuance and shall be implemented 20: Amendment revises the Technical
The July 16, 2004, letter provided within 30 days. Specifications.
clarifying information within the scope Amendment No.: 141. Date of initial notice in Federal
of the original application and did not Facility Operating License No. DPR– Register: November 9, 2004 (69 FR
change the staff’s initial proposed no 22. Amendment revised the TSs. 64989).
significant hazards consideration Date of initial notice in Federal The Commission’s related evaluation
determination. Register: April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19573). of the amendment is contained in a
The Commission’s related evaluation The Commission’s related evaluation Safety Evaluation dated January 10,
of this amendment is contained in a of the amendment is contained in a 2005.
Safety Evaluation dated January 25, Safety Evaluation dated January 28, No significant hazards consideration
2005. 2005. comments received: No.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Brief description of amendments: The Leak Rate Test (ILRT). This change
Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Plant, Van amendments revise Technical extends the 10-year interval between
Buren County, Michigan Specifications (TSs) 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip ILRTs to 15 years from the previous
Date of application for amendment: System (RTS) Instrumentation,’’ 3.3.2, ILRT.
January 30, 2004. ‘‘Engineered Safety Feature Actuation Date of issuance: February 1, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,’’ and Effective date: As of the date of
amendment eliminates requirements for 3.3.6, ‘‘Containment Ventilation issuance and shall be implemented
hydrogen recombiners and relocates the Isolation Instrumentation,’’ to adopt the within 30 days from the date of
requirements for hydrogen monitors to completion time, test bypass time, and issuance.
surveillance frequency time changes Amendment No.: 187.
the licensee’s Commitment Management Renewed Facility Operating License
Program. approved by the NRC in Topical Reports
WCAP–14333–P–A, ‘‘Probabilistic Risk No. NPF–5: Amendment revised the
Effective date: As of the date of Analysis of the RPS [reactor protection Technical Specifications.
system] and ESFAS Test Times and Date of initial notice in Federal
issuance and shall be implemented
Completion Times,’’ and WCAP–15376– Register: August 3, 2004 (69 FR 46591).
within 120 days. The supplements dated August 17
Amendment No.: 221. P–A, ‘‘Risk-Informed Assessment of the
RTS and ESFAS Surveillance Test and September 7, 2004, provided
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
Intervals and Reactor Trip Breaker Test additional information that clarified the
20: Amendment revises the Technical
and Completion Times.’’ The application, did not expand the scope of
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal amendments revise the required actions the application as originally noticed,
Register: March 2, 2004 (69 FR 9862). for certain action conditions; increase and did not change the staff’s original
The Commission’s related evaluation the completion times for several proposed no significant hazards
of the amendment is contained in a required actions (including some notes); consideration determination as
Safety Evaluation dated January 11, delete notes in certain required actions; published in the Federal Register.
2005. The Commission’s related evaluation
and increase frequency time intervals
No significant hazards consideration of the amendments is contained in a
(including certain notes) in several
comments received: No. Safety Evaluation dated February 1,
surveillance requirements.
Date of issuance: January 31, 2005. 2005.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Effective date: January 31, 2005, and No significant hazards consideration
Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306, Prairie shall be implemented within 180 days comments received: No.
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units of the date of issuance. Union Electric Company, Docket No.
1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—179; Unit 50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Date of application for amendments: 2—181. Callaway County, Missouri
October 5, 2004. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
Brief description of amendments: The 80 and DPR–82: The amendments Date of application for amendment:
amendments delete technical revised the Technical Specifications. December 17, 2003, as supplemented by
specification (TS) 5.6.1, ‘‘Occupational Date of initial notice in Federal letters dated October 28 and November
Radiation Exposure Report,’’ and TS Register: March 30, 2004 (69 FR 16, 2004.
16622). The supplemental letters dated Brief description of amendment: The
5.6.4 ‘‘Monthly Operating Reports,’’ as
November 5 and December 10, 2004, amendment revises TSs 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor
described in the Notice of Availability
provided clarifying information that did Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation,’’
published in the Federal Register on
not change the scope of the original 3.3.2, ‘‘Engineered Safety Feature
June 23, 2004 (69 FR 35067).
application as noticed or the NRC staff’s Actuation System (ESFAS)
Effective date: As of the date of original proposed no significant hazards Instrumentation,’’ and 3.3.9, ‘‘Boron
issuance and shall be implemented consideration determination. Dilution Mitigation System (BDMS)’’ to
within 90 days. The Commission’s related evaluation adopt the completion time, test bypass
Amendment Nos.: 168, 158. of the amendments is contained in a time, and surveillance time interval
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– Safety Evaluation dated January 31, changes in NRC-approved WCAP–
42 and DPR–60: Amendments revised 2005. 14333–P–A, ‘‘Probabilistic Risk
the Technical Specifications. No significant hazards consideration Analysis of the RPS [reactor protection
Date of initial notice in Federal comments received: No. system] and ESFAS Test Times and
Register: November 9, 2004 (69 FR Completion Times,’’ and WCAP–15376–
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, P–A, ‘‘Risk-Informed Assessment of the
64989).
Inc., Georgia Power Company, RTS and ESFAS Surveillance Test
The Commission’s related evaluation
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Intervals and Reactor Trip Breaker Test
of the amendments is contained in a
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and Completion Times.’’ The TS
Safety Evaluation dated January 31,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket No. 50– changes revise required actions for
2005.
No significant hazards consideration 366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit certain action conditions; increase the
comments received: No. 2, Appling County, Georgia completion times for several required
Date of application for amendments: actions (including some notes); delete
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, April 26, 2004, as supplemented by notes in certain required actions;
Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo letters dated August 17 and September increase frequency time intervals
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 7, 2004. (including certain notes) in several
1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, Brief description of amendments: The surveillance requirements (SRs); add an
California amendment revised the Technical action condition and required actions;
Date of application for amendments: Specification Section 5.5.12, ‘‘Primary revise notes in certain SRs; and revise
February 13, 2004, as supplemented by Containment Leakage Rate Testing Table 3.3.2–1. There is also an
letters dated November 5 and December Program’’ to reflect a one-time deferral administrative correction to the format
10, 2004. of the Type A Containment Integrated of the TSs.
Date of issuance: January 31, 2005. Date of initial notice in Federal and regulations. The Commission has
Effective date: January 31, 2005, and Register: February 3, 2004 (69 FR made appropriate findings as required
shall be implemented within 120 days 5212). by the Act and the Commission’s rules
of its date of issuance. The supplemental letters dated and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I,
Amendment No.: 165. October 7 and November 12, 2004, which are set forth in the license
Facility Operating License No. NPF– provided clarifying information that did amendment.
30: The amendment revised the not change the scope of the original Because of exigent or emergency
Technical Specifications. application as noticed or the NRC staff’s circumstances associated with the date
original proposed no significant hazards the amendment was needed, there was
Date of initial notice in Federal not time for the Commission to publish,
consideration determination.
Register: February 3, 2004 (69 FR for public comment before issuance, its
The Commission’s related evaluation
5211). usual Notice of Consideration of
of the amendment is contained in a
The supplemental letters dated Safety Evaluation dated January 31, Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No
October 28 and November 16, 2004, 2005. Significant Hazards Consideration
provided clarifying information that did No significant hazards consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a
not change the scope of the original comments received: No. Hearing.
application as noticed or the NRC staff’s For exigent circumstances, the
original proposed no significant hazards Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Commission has either issued a Federal
consideration determination. Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf Register notice providing opportunity
The Commission’s related evaluation Creek Generating Station, Coffey for public comment or has used local
of the amendment is contained in a County, Kansas media to provide notice to the public in
Safety Evaluation dated January 31, Date of amendment request: October the area surrounding a licensee’s facility
2005. 7, 2004. of the licensee’s application and of the
No significant hazards consideration Brief description of amendment: The Commission’s proposed determination
comments received: No. amendment revises Section 5.3, ‘‘Unit of no significant hazards consideration.
Staff Qualifications,’’ of the technical The Commission has provided a
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating specifications (TSs) to add the reasonable opportunity for the public to
Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf qualification requirements for the shift comment, using its best efforts to make
Creek Generating Station, Coffey manager and the control room available to the public means of
County, Kansas supervisor. In addition, based on a communication for the public to
Date of amendment request: comparison review performed by the respond quickly, and in the case of
December 15, 2003, as supplemented by NRC and Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating telephone comments, the comments
letters dated October 7 and November Corporation personnel, editorial have been recorded or transcribed as
12, 2004. corrections are being made to the TSs. appropriate and the licensee has been
Brief description of amendment: The Date of issuance: January 31, 2005. informed of the public comments.
amendment revises Technical Effective date: January 31, 2005, and In circumstances where failure to act
Specifications (TSs) 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip shall be implemented within 90 days in a timely way would have resulted, for
System (RTS) Instrumentation,’’ and from the date of issuance. example, in derating or shutdown of a
3.3.2, ‘‘Engineered Safety Feature Amendment No.: 159. nuclear power plant or in prevention of
Actuation System (ESFAS) Facility Operating License No. NPF– either resumption of operation or of
Instrumentation,’’ to adopt the 42: The amendment revised the increase in power output up to the
completion time, test bypass time, and Technical Specifications. plant’s licensed power level, the
surveillance frequency time changes Date of initial notice in Federal Commission may not have had an
approved by the NRC in Topical Reports Register: November 23, 2004 (68 FR opportunity to provide for public
WCAP–14333–P–A, ‘‘Probabilistic Risk 68188). comment on its no significant hazards
Analysis of the RPS [reactor protection The Commission’s related evaluation consideration determination. In such
system] and ESFAS Test Times and of the amendment is contained in a case, the license amendment has been
Completion Times,’’ and WCAP–15376– Safety Evaluation dated January 31, issued without opportunity for
P–A, ‘‘Risk-Informed Assessment of the 2005. comment. If there has been some time
No significant hazards consideration for public comment but less than 30
RTS and ESFAS Surveillance Test
comments received: No. days, the Commission may provide an
Intervals and Reactor Trip Breaker Test
and Completion Times.’’ The opportunity for public comment. If
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
amendment revises the required actions comments have been requested, it is so
Facility Operating Licenses and Final
for certain action conditions; increase stated. In either event, the State has
Determination of No Significant
the completion times for several been consulted by telephone whenever
Hazards Consideration and
required actions (including some notes); possible.
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Under its regulations, the Commission
delete notes in certain required actions; Public Announcement or Emergency may issue and make an amendment
and increase frequency time intervals Circumstances) immediately effective, notwithstanding
(including certain notes) in several During the period since publication of the pendency before it of a request for
surveillance requirements. the last biweekly notice, the a hearing from any person, in advance
Date of issuance: January 31, 2005. Commission has issued the following of the holding and completion of any
Effective date: January 31, 2005, and amendments. The Commission has required hearing, where it has
shall be implemented within 180 days determined for each of these determined that no significant hazards
of the date of issuance. amendments that the application for the consideration is involved.
Amendment No.: 156. amendment complies with the The Commission has applied the
Facility Operating License No. NPF– standards and requirements of the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made
42. The amendment revised the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended a final determination that the
Technical Specifications. (the Act), and the Commission’s rules amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this and electronically on the Internet at the Contentions shall be limited to matters
determination is contained in the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ within the scope of the amendment
documents related to this action. reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there under consideration. The contention
Accordingly, the amendments have are problems in accessing the document, must be one which, if proven, would
been issued and made effective as contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 entitle the petitioner to relief. A
indicated. (800) 397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by e- petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy
Unless otherwise indicated, the mail to pdr@nrc.gov. If a request for a these requirements with respect to at
Commission has determined that these hearing or petition for leave to intervene least one contention will not be
amendments satisfy the criteria for is filed by the above date, the permitted to participate as a party.
categorical exclusion in accordance Commission or a presiding officer Each contention shall be given a
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant designated by the Commission or by the separate numeric or alpha designation
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental Chief Administrative Judge of the within one of the following groups:
impact statement or environmental Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1. Technical—primarily concerns/
assessment need be prepared for these Panel, will rule on the request and/or issues relating to technical and/or
amendments. If the Commission has petition; and the Secretary or the Chief health and safety matters discussed or
prepared an environmental assessment Administrative Judge of the Atomic referenced in the applications.
under the special circumstances Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 2. Environmental—primarily
provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has notice of a hearing or an appropriate concerns/issues relating to matters
made a determination based on that order. discussed or referenced in the
assessment, it is so indicated. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a environmental analysis for the
For further details with respect to the petition for leave to intervene shall set applications.
action see (1) the application for forth with particularity the interest of 3. Miscellaneous—does not fall into
amendment, (2) the amendment to the petitioner in the proceeding, and one of the categories outlined above.
Facility Operating License, and (3) the how that interest may be affected by the As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two
Commission’s related letter, Safety results of the proceeding. The petition or more petitioners/requestors seek to
Evaluation and/or Environmental should specifically explain the reasons co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/
Assessment, as indicated. All of these why intervention should be permitted requestors shall jointly designate a
items are available for public inspection with particular reference to the representative who shall have the
at the Commission’s Public Document following general requirements: (1) The authority to act for the petitioners/
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint name, address, and telephone number of requestors with respect to that
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 the requestor or petitioner; (2) the contention. If a petitioner/requestor
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s seeks to adopt the contention of another
Maryland. Publicly available records right under the Act to be made a party sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the
will be accessible from the Agencywide to the proceeding; (3) the nature and petitioner/requestor who seeks to adopt
Documents Access and Management extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s the contention must either agree that the
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic property, financial, or other interest in sponsoring petitioner/requestor shall act
Reading Room on the Internet at the the proceeding; and (4) the possible as the representative with respect to that
NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ contention, or jointly designate with the
effect of any decision or order which
reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not sponsoring petitioner/requestor a
may be entered in the proceeding on the
have access to ADAMS or if there are representative who shall have the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
problems in accessing the documents authority to act for the petitioners/
petition must also identify the specific
located in ADAMS, contact the PDR requestors with respect to that
contentions which the petitioner/
Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209, contention.
requestor seeks to have litigated at the
(301) 415–4737 or by email to Those permitted to intervene become
proceeding.
pdr@nrc.gov. parties to the proceeding, subject to any
The Commission is also offering an Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or limitations in the order granting leave to
opportunity for a hearing with respect to intervene, and have the opportunity to
the issuance of the amendment. Within fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner/requestor shall participate fully in the conduct of the
60 days after the date of publication of hearing. Since the Commission has
this notice, the licensee may file a provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise made a final determination that the
request for a hearing with respect to amendment involves no significant
issuance of the amendment to the statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention hazards consideration, if a hearing is
subject facility operating license and requested, it will not stay the
any person whose interest may be and on which the petitioner intends to
rely in proving the contention at the effectiveness of the amendment. Any
affected by this proceeding and who hearing held would take place while the
wishes to participate as a party in the hearing. The petitioner must also
provide references to those specific amendment is in effect.
proceeding must file a written request A request for a hearing or a petition
for a hearing and a petition for leave to sources and documents of which the
petitioner is aware and on which the for leave to intervene must be filed by:
intervene. Requests for a hearing and a (1) First class mail addressed to the
petition for leave to intervene shall be petitioner intends to rely to establish
those facts or expert opinion. The Office of the Secretary of the
filed in accordance with the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for petition must include sufficient
information to show that a genuine Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
CFR part 2. Interested persons should dispute exists with the applicant on a
material issue of law or fact.1 Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, mail, and expedited delivery services:
which is available at the Commission’s 1 To the extent that the applications contain
PDR, located at One White Flint North, attachments and supporting documents that are not petitioners desiring access to this information
Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville publicly available because they are asserted to should contact the applicant or applicant’s counsel
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, contain safeguards or proprietary information, and discuss the need for a protective order.
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day methods that yield more accurate
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville of February, 2005. estimates of SSC seismic response,
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. while reducing unnecessary
Attention: Rulemaking and Ledyard B. Marsh, conservatism. In view of those
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail Director, Division of Licensing Project improvements, DG–1127 describes
addressed to the Office of the Secretary, Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor methods that the NRC staff finds
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulation. acceptable for combining modal
HearingDocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile [FR Doc. 05–2788 Filed 2–14–05; 8:45 am] responses and spatial components in
transmission addressed to the Office of BILLING CODE 7590–01–P seismic response analysis. The NRC
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory staff initially published Revision 2 of
Commission, Washington, DC, Regulatory Guide 1.92 as DG–1108,
Attention: Rulemakings and NUCLEAR REGULATORY dated August 2001. The staff
Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101, COMMISSION subsequently considered stakeholders’
verification number is (301) 415–1966. feedback on DG–1108, and incorporated
A copy of the request for hearing and Draft Regulatory Guide; Issuance, the necessary changes in DG–1127.
petition for leave to intervene should Availability The NRC staff is soliciting comments
also be sent to the Office of the General on Draft Regulatory Guide DG–1127,
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory and specifically on the new regulatory
Commission (NRC) has issued for public
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– position regarding residual rigid
comment a draft revision to an existing
0001, and it is requested that copies be response of the missing mass modes, as
guide in the agency’s Regulatory Guide described in Sections 1.4 and 1.5 of DG–
transmitted either by means of facsimile Series. This series has been developed
transmission to (301) 415–3725 or by 1127. Comments may be accompanied
to describe and make available to the by relevant information or supporting
email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A public such information as methods that
copy of the request for hearing and data. Please mention DG–1127 in the
are acceptable to the NRC staff for subject line of your comments.
petition for leave to intervene should implementing specific parts of the
also be sent to the attorney for the Comments on this draft regulatory guide
NRC’s regulations, techniques that the submitted in writing or in electronic
licensee. staff uses in evaluating specific
Nontimely requests and/or petitions form will be made available to the
problems or postulated accidents, and public in their entirety in the NRC’s
and contentions will not be entertained data that the staff needs in its review of
absent a determination by the Agencywide Documents Access and
applications for permits and licenses. Management System (ADAMS).
Commission or the presiding officer or The draft Revision 2 of Regulatory
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Personal information will not be
Guide 1.92, entitled ‘‘Combining Modal removed from your comments. You may
that the petition, request and/or the Responses and Spatial Components in
contentions should be granted based on submit comments by any of the
Seismic Response Analysis,’’ is following methods.
a balancing of the factors specified in 10 temporarily identified by its task
CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)–(viii). Mail comments to: Rules and
number, DG–1127, which should be Directives Branch, Office of
Indiana Michigan Power Company, mentioned in all related Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Docket No. 50–315, Donald C. Cook correspondence. Like its predecessors, Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Berrien County, the proposed revision describes 0001.
Michigan methods that the NRC staff finds E-mail comments to:
acceptable for complying with the NRCREP@nrc.gov. You may also submit
Date of amendment request: January
NRC’s regulatory requirements in comments via the NRC’s rulemaking
15, 2005.
Description of amendment request: Criterion 2, ‘‘Design Bases for Protection Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
The amendment revises the Operating Against Natural Phenomena,’’ as it Address questions about our rulemaking
License to add a license condition to appears in Appendix A, ‘‘General Web site to Carol A. Gallagher (301)
allow a one-time extension of the Design Criteria for Nuclear Power 415–5905; e-mail CAG@nrc.gov.
allowed outage time for the west Plants,’’ to Title 10, Part 50, of the Code Hand-deliver comments to: Rules and
centrifugal charging pump. of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50). Directives Branch, Office of
Date of issuance: January 16, 2005. Specifically, Criterion 2 requires, in Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Effective date: January 16, 2005. part, that nuclear power plant (NPP) Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Amendment No.: 285. structures, systems, and components Rockville, Maryland 20852, between
Facility Operating License No. DPR– (SSCs) that are important to safety must 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal
58: Amendment revises the Operating be designed to withstand the effects of workdays.
License. natural phenomena (such as Fax comments to: Rules and
Public comments requested as to earthquakes) without losing their Directives Branch, Office of
proposed no significant hazards capability to perform their respective Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
consideration (NSHC): No. The safety functions. Commission at (301) 415–5144.
Commission’s related evaluation of the For several decades, the nuclear Requests for technical information
amendment, finding of emergency industry fulfilled Criterion 2 using the about draft regulatory guide DG–1127
circumstances, state consultation, and response spectrum method and the time may be directed to Dr. T.Y. Chang, at
final NSHC determination are contained history method for seismic analysis and (301) 415–6450 or via e-mail to
in a safety evaluation dated January 16, design of NPP SSCs. Then, in 1976, the TYC@nrc.gov.
2005. NRC issued Revision 1 of Regulatory Comments would be most helpful if
Attorney for licensee: David W. Guide 1.92, which described then-up-to- received by April 15, 2005. Comments
Jenkins, Esq., 500 Circle Drive, date guidance for using the response received after this date will be
Buchanan, MI 49107. spectrum and time history methods. considered if it is practical to do so, but
NRC Section Chief: M. Kotzalas, Since that time, research in the United the NRC is able to ensure consideration
Acting. States has resulted in improved only for comments received on or before

Notice: Operating Licenses, Amendments No Significant Hazards Considerations Biweekly Notices

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notice: Operating Licenses, Amendments No Significant Hazards Considerations Biweekly Notices

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7762 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.

30 / Tuesday, February 15, 2005 / Notices

You might also like