Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 2886-2907 [05-779]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2886-2907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-779]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


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

I. Background

    Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. 
The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments 
issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the 
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an 
operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such 
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from December 23, 2004, through January 5, 2005. 
The last biweekly notice was published on January 4, 2005 (70 FR 398).

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

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

[[Page 2887]]

opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HearingDocket@nrc.gov; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition 
for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the 
licensee.
    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2004, supplemented by letter 
dated August 23, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Operating License DPR-65 to address the resolution of a non-
conservative Technical Specification (TS) associated with control room 
isolation radiation monitoring instrumentation. Specifically, the 
amendment would revise the TS to require two operable channels of 
control room isolation radiation monitoring instrumentation.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis 
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review is 
presented below:

    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change involves requirements to maintain two 
operable channels in order to add a level of detection capability 
and greater assurance that the safety function for control room 
isolation is met. In addition, the proposed change will not alter 
the setpoint value for the radiation monitors nor will it affect the 
method for control room air filtration during the emergency mode of 
operation. Therefore, the proposed change from one operable channel 
to two operable channels for the control room isolation radiation 
monitoring instrumentation will not increase the probability of 
consequences of any previously evaluated accident.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change involves radiation monitoring channels 
designed to send a signal to isolate the control room when high 
radiation levels are detected to limit the radiological dose to the 
control room operators in the event of an accident. In addition, the 
proposed change will not have an impact on the setpoint value to 
change the radiation level at which control room isolation is 
assumed to occur. Again, the proposed change will not introduce 
failure modes, accident initiators, or malfunctions. Therefore, the 
proposed change from one operable channel to two operable channels 
for the control room isolation radiation monitoring instrumentation, 
will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Increasing the number of radiation monitoring channels for the 
control room isolation radiation monitoring instrumentation will not 
reduce a margin of safety. The proposed change to add requirements 
to the TS for a redundant radiation monitoring channel will increase 
the reliability of the system to perform its intended function. In 
addition, the proposed change will add appropriate compensatory 
actions for conditions when both channels are not available. 
Therefore, given that the proposed change will continue to meet the 
current design basis, any reduction in a margin of safety would not 
be significant.

    Based on the NRC staff's analysis, it appears that the three 
standards of 10 CFR 50.929(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 
proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 
06385.
    NRC Section Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.

[[Page 2888]]

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-245, 50-336, and 50-
423, Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, New London 
County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: September 8, 2002.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the Technical Specifications to support the implementation of 
the proposed Dominion Nuclear Facility Quality Assurance Program 
(Topical Report DOM-QA-1). Implementation of this Topical Report would 
create a common quality assurance program for all sites owned by 
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. Review of this proposed amendment 
was requested to be done in concert with review of the Topical Report. 
The Topical Report is available in the Agencywide Document Access and 
Management System under accession number ML042470015.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequence of an accident previously analyzed. 
The changes involve the transfer of requirements from the 
administrative section of the Technical Specifications to the 
Consolidated Quality Assurance Program and other licensee controlled 
documents. Therefore, the proposed changes are administrative in 
nature, and have no effect on a design basis accident, and will not 
increase the probability or consequences of any previously analyzed 
accident.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    The implementation of the proposed changes does not create the 
possibility of an accident of a different type than was previously 
evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The 
transfer of requirements concerning facility staff qualifications 
from the administrative section of the Technical Specifications to 
the Consolidated Quality Assurance Program and other licensee 
controlled documents can not initiate a new or different kind of 
accident.
    These changes do not alter the nature of events postulated in 
the UFSAR nor do they introduce any unique precursor mechanisms. 
Therefore, the proposed changes are administrative in nature and do 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from those previously analyzed.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The implementation of the proposed changes does not reduce the 
margin of safety. The proposed changes to transfer certain 
requirements from the administration section of the Technical 
Specifications to the Consolidated Quality Assurance Program and 
other licensee controlled documents have no effect on design bases 
radiological events. It is thus concluded that the proposed changes 
are administrative in nature and the margin of safety will not be 
reduced by the implementation of the changes.

    Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 
06385.
    NRC Section Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont

    Date of amendment request: December 6, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would make 
administrative changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) including 
correction of references and deleting obsolete or redundant TS 
requirements and surveillances.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration which is presented below:

    1. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes are administrative or editorial in nature 
and do not involve any physical changes to the plant. The changes do 
not revise the methods of plant operation which could increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents. No new modes of operation 
are introduced by the proposed changes such that a previously 
evaluated accident is more likely to occur or more adverse 
consequences would result.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    These changes are administrative or editorial in nature and do 
not affect the operation of any systems or equipment, nor do they 
involve any potential initiating events that would create any new or 
different kind of accident. There are no changes to the design 
assumptions, conditions, configuration of the facility, or manner in 
which the plant is operated and maintained. The changes do not 
affect assumptions contained in plant safety analyses or the 
physical design and/or modes of plant operation. Consequently, no 
new failure mode is introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    There are no changes being made to the Technical Specification 
(TS) safety limits or safety system settings. The operating limits 
and functional capabilities of systems, structures and components 
are unchanged as a result of these administrative and editorial 
changes. These changes do not affect any equipment involved in 
potential initiating events or plant response to accidents. There is 
no change to the basis for any TS that is related to the 
establishment, or maintenance of, a nuclear safety margin.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. David R. Lewis, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and 
Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037-1128.
    NRC Section Chief: Allen G. Howe.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont

    Date of amendment request: December 7, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to: (1) Delete the 
surveillance requirement (SR) associated with testing of the standby 
liquid control (SLC) pump discharge pressure relief valves; and (2) 
remove details from the SR for testing of the recirculation pump 
discharge valves.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration which is presented below:

    1. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) in 
accordance

[[Page 2889]]

with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed amendment removes details of SLC pressure relief 
valve and recirculation pump discharge valve testing requirements 
from the TS. Following implementation of the proposed change, the VY 
TS will still require operability testing of the subject components 
by reference to the VY IST [Inservice Testing] Program. Details of 
SLC pressure relief valve and recirculation pump discharge valve 
testing requirements will still be contained in the VY IST Program. 
The SLC pressure relief valve and recirculation pump discharge valve 
setpoint values related to the safety functions of those systems 
will continue to be contained in the VY UFSAR [Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report]. Changes to the VY UFSAR are evaluated per the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.59. These controls are adequate to ensure 
the required inservice testing is performed to verify the components 
are operable and capable of performing their respective safety 
functions. The proposed amendment introduces no new equipment or 
changes to how equipment is operated. Neither the SLC pressure 
relief valves nor the recirculation pump discharge valves are 
initiators of any analyzed accidents. Therefore, operation of VY in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed amendment removes details of SLC pressure relief 
valve and recirculation pump discharge valve testing requirements 
from the TS. The proposed amendment does not change the design or 
function of any component or system. No new modes of failure or 
initiating events are being introduced. Therefore, operation of VY 
in accordance with the proposed amendment will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed amendment removes details of SLC pressure relief 
valve and recirculation pump discharge valve testing requirements 
from the TS. The proposed amendment does not change the design or 
function of any component or system. The proposed amendment does not 
involve any safety limits or limiting safety system settings.
    Since the proposed controls are adequate to ensure the required 
inservice testing is performed, there will still be high assurance 
that the components are operable and capable of performing their 
respective safety functions, and that the systems will respond as 
designed to mitigate the subject events. Therefore, operation of VY 
in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. David R. Lewis, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and 
Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037-1128.
    NRC Section Chief: Allen G. Howe.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont

    Date of amendment request: December 15, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the limiting conditions for operation in Technical Specification 
(TS) 3.3 and the surveillance requirements in TS 4.3 associated with 
the control rod system. Specifically, the proposed changes would revise 
the TSs associated with: (1) Control rod operability; (2) control rod 
scram time testing; and (3) control rod accumulator operability.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration which is presented below:

    1. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not significantly affect the design or 
fundamental operation and maintenance of the plant. Accident 
initiators or the frequency of analyzed accident events are not 
significantly affected as a result of the proposed changes; 
therefore, there will be no significant change to the probabilities 
of accidents previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not significantly alter assumptions or 
initial conditions relative to the mitigation of an accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed changes continue to ensure 
process variables, structures, systems, and components (SSCs) are 
maintained consistent with the safety analyses and licensing basis. 
The revised technical specifications continue to require that SSCs 
are properly maintained to ensure operability and performance of 
safety functions as assumed in the safety analyses. The design basis 
events analyzed in the safety analyses will not change significantly 
as a result of the proposed changes to the TS.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment being installed) 
and do not involve a change in the design, normal configuration or 
basic operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not introduce 
any new accident initiators. In some cases, the proposed changes 
impose different requirements; however, these new requirements are 
consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses and current 
licensing basis. Where requirements are relocated to other licensee-
controlled documents, adequate controls exist to ensure their proper 
maintenance.
    The proposed changes do not involve significant changes in the 
fundamental methods governing normal plant operation and do not 
require unusual or uncommon operator actions. The proposed changes 
provide assurance that the plant will not be operated in a mode or 
condition that violates the essential assumptions or initial 
conditions in the safety analyses and that SSCs remain capable of 
performing their intended safety functions as assumed in the same 
analyses. Consequently, the response of the plant and the plant 
operator to postulated events will not be significantly different.
    Therefore, the proposed TS change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following an accident situation. The proposed changes do 
not significantly affect any of the assumptions, initial conditions 
or inputs to the safety analyses. Plant design is unaffected by 
these proposed changes and will continue to provide adequate 
defense-in-depth and diversity of safety functions as assumed in the 
safety analyses.
    There are no proposed changes to any of the Safety Limits or 
Limiting Safety System Setting requirements. The proposed changes 
maintain requirements consistent with safety analyses assumptions 
and the licensing basis. Fission product barriers will continue to 
meet their design capabilities without any significant impact to 
their ability to maintain parameters within acceptable limits. The 
safety functions are maintained within acceptable limits without any 
significant decrease in capability.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three

[[Page 2890]]

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 
proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. David R. Lewis, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and 
Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037-1128.
    NRC Section Chief: Allen G. Howe.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: December 20, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The requested change will delete 
the requirements in Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.1, ``Occupational 
Radiation Exposure Report,'' and TS 5.6.4, ``Monthly Operating 
Reports.''
    The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no 
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing 
in license amendment applications in the Federal Register on June 23, 
2004 (69 FR 35067). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the 
model NSHC determination in its application dated December 20, 2004.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change eliminates the Technical Specifications 
(TSs) reporting requirements to provide a monthly operating letter 
report of shutdown experience and operating statistics if the 
equivalent data is submitted using an industry electronic database. 
It also eliminates the TS reporting requirement for an annual 
occupational radiation exposure report, which provides information 
beyond that specified in NRC regulations. The proposed change 
involves no changes to plant systems or accident analyses. As such, 
the change is administrative in nature and does not affect 
initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or 
transients. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment 
to be operated in a manner different from the present design. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This is an administrative change to reporting requirements of 
plant operating information and occupational radiation exposure 
data, and has no effect on plant equipment, operating practices or 
safety analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    Based upon the reasoning presented above, the requested change does 
not involve significance hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and 
Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3502.
    NRC Section Chief: Michael A. Webb (Acting).

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: December 20, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The requested change will delete 
the requirements in Technical Specification (TS) 6.6.1, ``Occupational 
Radiation Exposure Report,'' and TS 6.6.4, ``Monthly Operating 
Reports.''
    The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no 
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing 
in license amendment applications in the Federal Register on June 23, 
2004 (69 FR 35067). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the 
model NSHC determination in its application dated December 20, 2004.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change eliminates the Technical Specifications 
(TSs) reporting requirements to provide a monthly operating report 
of shutdown experience and operating statistics if the equivalent 
data is submitted using an industry electronic database. It also 
eliminates the TS reporting requirement for an annual occupational 
radiation exposure report, which provides information beyond that 
specified in NRC regulations. The proposed change involves no 
changes to plant systems or accident analyses. As such, the change 
is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of 
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or transients. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment 
to be operated in a manner different from the present design. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This is an administrative change to reporting requirements of 
plant operating information and occupational radiation exposure 
data, and has no effect on plant equipment, operating practices or 
safety analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    Based upon the reasoning presented above, the requested change does 
not involve significance hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and 
Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3502.
    NRC Section Chief: Michael A. Webb (Acting).

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

    Date of amendment request: October 14, 2004.
    Brief description of amendments: The proposed change will revise 
the surveillance requirement (SR) 3.6.6.8 frequency of every 10 years. 
Instead, the proposed change to SR 3.6.6.8 will require verification 
that spray nozzles are unobstructed following maintenance that could 
result in nozzle blockage.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below and states that the amendment 
request:

    1. Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change modifies the [Surveillance Requirements] SR 
to verify that the [Reactor Building] RB spray nozzles are 
unobstructed after maintenance that could introduce material that 
could result in nozzle blockage. The spray nozzles are not assumed 
to be initiators of any previously analyzed

[[Page 2891]]

accident. Therefore, the change does not increase the probability of 
any accident previously evaluated. The spray nozzles are assumed in 
the accident analyses to mitigate design basis accidents. The 
revised SR to verify system OPERABILITY following maintenance is 
considered adequate to ensure OPERABILITY of the RB spray system. 
Since the system will still be able to perform its accident 
mitigation function, the consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different type of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change revises the SR to verify that the RB spray 
nozzles are unobstructed after maintenance that could result in 
nozzle blockage. The change does not introduce a new mode of plant 
operation and does not involve physical modification to the plant. 
The change will not introduce new accident initiators or impact the 
assumptions made in the safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed 
change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety.
    The proposed change revises the frequency for performance of the 
SR to verify that the RB spray nozzles are unobstructed. The 
frequency is changed from every 10 years to following maintenance 
that could result in nozzle blockage. This requirement, along with 
foreign material exclusion programs and the remote physical location 
of the spray nozzles, provides assurance that the spray nozzles will 
remain unobstructed. As the spray nozzles are expected to remain 
unobstructed and able to perform their post-accident mitigation 
function, plant safety is not significantly affected. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Steven R. Carr, Associate General Counsel--
Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 
1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
    NRC Section Chief: Michael L. Marshall, Jr.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 22, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The requested change will delete 
the requirements in Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.1, ``Occupational 
Radiation Exposure Report,'' and TS 5.6.4, ``Monthly Operating 
Reports.''
    The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no 
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing 
in license amendment applications in the Federal Register on June 23, 
2004 (69 FR 35067). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the 
model NSHC determination in its application dated November 22, 2004.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change eliminates the Technical Specifications 
(TSs) reporting requirements to provide a monthly operating report 
of shutdown experience and operating statistics if the equivalent 
data is submitted using an industry electronic database. It also 
eliminates the TS reporting requirement for an annual occupational 
radiation exposure report, which provides information beyond that 
specified in NRC regulations. The proposed change involves no 
changes to plant systems or accident analyses. As such, the change 
is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of 
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or transients. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment 
to be operated in a manner different from the present design. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This is an administrative change to reporting requirements of 
plant operating information and occupational radiation exposure 
data, and has no effect on plant equipment, operating practices or 
safety analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    Based upon the reasoning presented above, the requested change does 
not involve significance hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. John R. McPhail, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
    NRC Section Chief: Michael K. Webb (Acting).

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear 
Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: April 29, 2004, as supplemented November 
23, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment is a 
selective-scope application of an alternative source term (AST) for the 
fuel handling accident (FHA) in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.67, ``Accident Source Term.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment involves implementation of the AST for 
the fuel handling accident at MNGP [Monticello Nuclear Generating 
Plant]. There are no physical design modifications to the plant 
associated with the proposed amendment. The revised calculations do 
not impact the initiators of an FHA in any way.
    The changes also do not impact the initiators for any other 
design basis accident (DBA) or events. Therefore, because DBA 
initiators are not being altered by adoption of the AST analyses, 
the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected.
    With respect to consequences, the only previously evaluated 
accident that could be affected is the FHA. The AST is an input to 
calculations used to evaluate the consequences of the accident, and 
does not, in and of itself, affect the plant response or the actual 
pathways to the environment utilized by the radiation/activity 
released by the fuel. It does however, better represent the physical 
characteristics of the release, so that appropriate mitigation 
techniques may be applied. For the FHA, the AST analyses demonstrate 
acceptable doses that are within regulatory limits after 24 hours of 
radiological decay, without credit for Secondary Containment 
integrity, selected ESF [engineered safety feature] filtration 
system operation (i.e., SBGT [standby gas treatment] System or 
Control Room EFT [emergency filtration] System) or Control Room 
isolation. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated are not significantly increased.
    Based on the above conclusions, this proposed amendment does not 
involve a

[[Page 2892]]

significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant. No new or different types of equipment will be installed 
and there are no physical modifications to existing equipment 
associated with the proposed changes. Also, no changes are proposed 
to the methods governing plant/system operation during handling of 
irradiated fuel, so no new initiators or precursors of a new or 
different kind of accident are created. New equipment or personnel 
failure modes that might initiate a new type of accident are not 
created as a result of the proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment is associated with the implementation of 
a new licensing basis for the MNGP FHA. Approval of this change from 
the original source term to an alternative source term derived in 
accordance with the guidance of RG 1.183 [``Alternative Radiological 
Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power 
Reactors''] is being requested. The results of the FHA accident 
analysis, revised in support of the proposed license amendment, are 
subject to revised acceptance criteria. The AST FHA analysis has 
been performed using conservative methodologies, as specified in RG 
1.183. Safety margins have been evaluated and analytical 
conservatism has been utilized to ensure that the analyses 
adequately bound the postulated limiting event scenario. The dose 
consequences of the limiting FHA remain within the acceptance 
criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183.
    The proposed changes continue to ensure that the doses at the 
Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) and Low Population Zone (LPZ) 
boundaries, as well as the Control Room, are within the 
corresponding regulatory limits. For the FHA, RG 1.183 
conservatively sets the EAB and LPZ limits below the 10 CFR 50.67 
limit, and sets the Control Room limit consistent with 10 CFR 50.67.
    Since the proposed amendment continues to ensure the doses at 
the EAB, LPZ and Control Room are within corresponding regulatory 
limits, the proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on the above, NMC has determined that operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed change does not involve a 
significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92(c), in 
that it: (1) Does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated; and (3) does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed 
the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the 
three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC 
staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, 
Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, 
Hudson, WI 54016.
    NRC Section Chief: L. Raghavan.

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear 
Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: June 30, 2004, as supplemented November 
5, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the technical specifications (TSs) to implement a 24-month fuel 
cycle.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis 
of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC), which is 
presented below:

    1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

a. Surveillance Testing Interval Extensions

    The proposed Technical Specification (TS) changes involve 
changes in the surveillance testing to facilitate a change in the 
operating cycle from 18 months to 24 months. The proposed TS changes 
do not physically impact the normal operation of the plant, nor do 
they impact any design or functional requirements of the associated 
systems. That is, the proposed TS changes neither impact the TS SRs 
[surveillance requirements] themselves nor the manner in which the 
surveillances are performed.
    In addition, the proposed TS changes do not introduce any 
accident initiators, since no accidents previously evaluated relate 
to the frequency of surveillance testing. Also, evaluations of the 
proposed TS changes demonstrate that the availability of equipment 
and systems required to prevent or mitigate the radiological 
consequences of an accident are not significantly affected because 
of other, more frequent testing that is performed, the availability 
of redundant systems and equipment, or the high reliability of the 
equipment. Since the impact on the systems is minimal NMC [Nuclear 
Management Company] has concluded that the overall impact on the 
plant safety analysis is negligible.
    A historical review of surveillance test results and associated 
maintenance records indicated that there was no evidence of any 
failure that would invalidate the above conclusions.
    Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not significantly increase 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

b. TS Trip Setting Changes

    Changes are proposed to the Monticello TS Trip Settings. The 
proposed changes are a result of application of the Monticello 
Instrument Setpoint Methodology using plant-specific drift values. 
Application of this methodology results in Trip Setpoints that more 
accurately reflect total instrumentation loop accuracy, as well as 
that of test equipment and calculated drift between surveillances. 
The proposed changes will not result in hardware changes. The 
instrumentation is not assumed to be initiators of any analyzed 
events, nor do they impact any design or functional requirements of 
the associated systems. Existing operating margins between plant 
conditions and actual plant setpoints are not significantly reduced 
due to the proposed changes. The role of the instrumentation is in 
mitigating and thereby, limiting the consequences of accidents.
    The Nominal Trip Setpoints were developed to ensure the design 
and safety analysis limits are satisfied. The methodology used for 
the development of the Trip Settings ensures: (1) The affected 
instrumentation remains capable of mitigating design basis events as 
described in the safety analysis; and, (2) the results and 
radiological consequences described in the safety analysis remain 
bounding. The proposed changes do not alter the plant's ability to 
detect and mitigate events.
    Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.

c. Surveillance Testing Interval Reductions

    The proposed TS changes involve reductions in the surveillance 
testing intervals from once per operating cycle or refueling outage 
to once every three (3) months or once per quarter for the equipment 
associated with these TS SRs. The shorter intervals are based upon 
the plant-specific results of a review of the surveillance test 
history for this equipment. The implementing procedures for these 
SRs have been performed on a once per three (3) month or once per 
quarter interval for a number of years, and these changes more 
accurately reflect actual plant maintenance practices. The proposed, 
more restrictive TS changes do not physically impact the plant, nor 
do they impact any design or functional requirements of the 
associated systems. That is, the proposed TS changes neither degrade 
the performance of, nor increase the challenges to, any safety 
system assumed to function in the safety analysis. These proposed TS 
changes neither impact the TS SRs themselves nor the manner in which 
the surveillances are performed.
    The proposed TS changes do not introduce any accident 
initiators, since no accident previously evaluated relate to the 
frequency

[[Page 2893]]

of surveillance testing. The proposed TS intervals demonstrate that 
the equipment and systems required to prevent or mitigate the 
radiological consequences of an accident are continuing to meet the 
assumptions of the setpoint evaluation on a more frequent basis. 
Since the impacts on systems are minimal and the assumptions of the 
safety analyses are maintained, NMC has concluded that the overall 
impact on the plant safety analysis is negligible.
    Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not significantly increase 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind or accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.

a. Surveillance Testing Interval Extensions

    The proposed TS changes involve changes in the surveillance 
testing intervals to facilitate a change in the operating cycle 
length. The proposed TS changes do not introduce any failure 
mechanisms of a different type than those previously evaluated. 
There are no physical changes being made to the facility. No new or 
different equipment is being installed. No installed equipment is 
being operated in a different manner. As a result no new failure 
modes are introduced. The SRs themselves, and the manner in which 
surveillance tests are performed, remain unchanged.
    A historical review of surveillance test results and associated 
maintenance records indicated that there was no evidence of any 
failure that would invalidate the above conclusions.
    Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

b. TS Trip Setting Changes

    The proposed changes to the Trip Settings are a result of 
applying the Monticello Instrument Setpoint Methodology using plant-
specific drift values. The application of this methodology does not 
create the possibility of any new or different kinds of accidents 
from any accidents previously evaluated. This is based upon the fact 
that the method and manner of plant operations are unchanged.
    The use of the proposed Trip Setpoints does not impact the safe 
operation of the plant in that the safety analysis limits are 
maintained. The proposed changes in Trip Settings involve no system 
additions or physical modifications to plant systems. The Trip 
Settings are revised to ensure the affected instrumentation remains 
capable of mitigating accidents and transients. Plant equipment will 
not be operated in a manner different from previous operation. Since 
operational methods remain unchanged and the operating parameters 
were evaluated to maintain the plant within existing design basis 
criteria no different type of failure or accident is created.
    Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

c. Surveillance Testing Interval Reductions

    The proposed TS changes involve reductions in the surveillance 
testing intervals from once per operating cycle or refueling outage 
to once every three (3) months or once per quarter for the equipment 
associated with these TS SRs. The shorter intervals are based upon 
the plant-specific results of a review of the surveillance test 
history for this equipment. The implementing procedures for these 
SRs have been performed on a once per three (3) month or once per 
quarter interval for a number of years and these changes more 
accurately reflect actual plant maintenance practices. The proposed 
more restrictive TS changes do not physically impact the plant, nor 
do they impact any design or functional requirements of the 
associated systems. That is, the proposed TS changes neither degrade 
the performance of, nor increase the challenges to, any safety 
system assumed to function in the safety analysis. These proposed TS 
changes neither impact the TS SRs themselves nor the manner in which 
the surveillances are performed.
    The proposed TS changes do not introduce any failure mechanism 
of a different type than those previously evaluated. The proposed 
changes make no physical changes to the plant. No new or different 
equipment is being installed. No installed equipment is being 
operated in a different manner.
    A historical review of surveillance test results and associated 
maintenance records indicate that there is no evidence of any 
failure that would invalidate the above conclusions.
    Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed amendment will not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

a. Surveillance Testing Interval Extensions

    Although the proposed TS changes result in changes in the 
interval between surveillance tests, the impact, if any, on system 
availability is minimal based upon other, more frequent testing that 
is performed, the existence of redundant systems and equipment or 
overall system reliability. Evaluations show there is no evidence of 
any time-dependant failure that would impact system availability.
    The proposed changes do not significantly impact the condition 
or performance of structures, systems and components relied upon for 
accident mitigation. The proposed TS changes do not physically 
impact the plant, nor do they impact any design or functional 
requirements of the associated systems. The proposed changes do not 
significantly impact any safety analysis assumptions or results.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

b. TS Trip Setting Changes

    The proposed changes do not involve a reduction in a margin of 
safety. The proposed changes were developed using a Monticello 
Instrument Setpoint Methodology using plant-specific drift values. 
This methodology ensures no safety analysis limits are exceeded. The 
proposed TS changes do not physically impact the plant, nor do they 
impact any design or functional requirements of the associated 
systems.
    As such, these proposed changes do not involve a reduction in a 
margin of safety.

c. Surveillance Testing Interval Reductions

    The proposed TS changes result in a shorter interval between 
surveillance tests to ensure the assumptions of the safety analysis 
are maintained. The impact, if any, on system availability is 
minimal, as a result of the more frequent testing that is performed. 
The proposed changes do not significantly impact the condition or 
performance of structures, systems and components relied upon for 
accident mitigation. The proposed TS changes do not physically 
impact the plant, nor do they impact any design or functional 
requirements of the associated systems. The proposed changes do not 
significantly impact any safety analysis assumptions or results.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed 
the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the 
three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC 
staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves NSHC.
    Attorney for licensee: Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, 
Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, 
Hudson, WI 54016.
    NRC Section Chief: L. Raghavan.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: September 8, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment deletes 
the requirements from the technical specifications (TS) to maintain 
containment hydrogen monitors. Licensees were generally required to 
implement upgrades as described in NUREG-0737, ``Clarification of TMI 
[Three Mile Island] Action Plan Requirements,'' and Regulatory Guide 
(RG) 1.97, ``Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power 
Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an 
Accident.'' Implementation of these upgrades was an outcome of the 
lessons learned from the accident that occurred at TMI Unit 2. 
Requirements related to combustible gas control were imposed by Order 
for many facilities and were added to or included in the TS for nuclear 
power