Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 2586-2600 [06-320]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2586-2600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-320]


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

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 22, 2005 to January 5, 2006. The 
last biweekly notice was published on January 3, 2006 (71 FR 145).

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

[[Page 2587]]

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 
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-

[[Page 2588]]

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.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: December 2, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specifications to increase the allowable as-found main steam 
safety valve code safety function lift setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%.
    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. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS changes allow for an increase in the as-found 
Main Steam Safety Valve (MSSV) setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%. The proposed changes do not alter the 
MSSV nominal lift setpoints or MSSV lift setpoint test frequency.
    The proposed TS changes have been evaluated on both a generic 
and plant specific basis. The NRC has approved the general approach 
of this change; however, implementation is contingent on several 
plant specific evaluations. The required plant specific analyses and 
evaluations included transient analysis of the anticipated 
operational transients (AOTs); analysis of the design basis 
overpressurization event; evaluation of the performance of high 
pressure systems, and evaluation of the containment response during 
Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) and hydrodynamic loads on the MSSV 
discharge lines and containment. These analyses and evaluations 
demonstrate that there is adequate margin to the design core thermal 
limits and reactor vessel pressure limits using the 3% 
MSSV as-found setpoint tolerance. The analyses and evaluations also 
demonstrate that the operation of high-pressure safety systems will 
not be adversely affected and that the containment response during a 
LOCA will be acceptable.
    Evaluations of the impact of the proposed change on the 
equipment important to safety have been performed and no adverse 
conditions were identified. The reactor pressure vessel and attached 
systems and piping have been evaluated for the impact of this 
proposed TS change. A plant specific analysis has been performed 
which indicates that the ASME Code upset limits for the reactor 
pressure vessel will not be exceeded for the limiting event, i.e., 
Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) closure with flux Scram. The 
reactor pressure vessel and attached piping design values will not 
be exceeded. Therefore, the probability of a malfunction of the 
reactor pressure vessel and attached systems and piping is not 
increased and the consequences of such an accident remain 
acceptable.
    The nuclear fuel has been evaluated for the impact of the 
proposed change.
    Plant specific analyses were performed which indicate that for 
all abnormal operational transients adequate margin to the fuel 
thermal limit parameters, i.e., Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) 
and thermal-mechanical limits, is maintained. Emergency Core Cooling 
System (ECCS)/LOCA performance is maintained adequate to meet the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.46. Therefore, the consequences of these 
accidents remain acceptable and the probability of the malfunction 
of the nuclear fuel is not increased.
    The Containment response during a LOCA has been evaluated for 
the impact of the proposed change. The major factor in the 
Containment pressure response to a LOCA is the rate of reactor 
vessel water inventory loss due to a DBA LOCA. The rate of reactor 
vessel water inventory loss is mainly dependent on the initial 
reactor pressure, which is not affected by the proposed setpoint 
tolerance change. The major factor in the Containment temperature 
response to a LOCA is the integrated steam inventory loss due to 
Main Steamline Break. The rate of reactor vessel steam inventory 
loss is mainly dependent on the reactor decay heat, which is not 
affected by the proposed setpoint tolerance change. Therefore, the 
consequences of these accidents remain acceptable and the 
probability of the malfunction of Containment is not increased.
    The Control Rod Drive (CRD) system has been evaluated for the 
impact of the proposed change. The CRD system capability of 
controlling reactor power during normal plant operation and rapidly 
inserting control rod blades (Scram) during abnormal plant 
conditions is not impacted by the proposed change. Therefore, the 
probability of a malfunction of the CRD system is not increased.
    The Reactor Vessel Instrumentation System has been evaluated for 
the impact of the proposed change. The Reactor Vessel 
Instrumentation System will continue to be operated within the 
current design pressure/temperature requirements; therefore, the 
probability of a malfunction of the Reactor Vessel Instrumentation 
System is not increased.
    An administrative change is also being proposed to correct the 
reference to ``IWV-3510 of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and 
Pressure Vessel Code'' in TS 4.3.E because the stated ASME section 
no longer exists. The TS is being changed to reference specification 
4.3.C for MSSV testing. This is an administrative change and does 
not affect previously evaluated accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not significantly increase 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Will operation of the facility in accordance of the proposed 
amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS changes allow for an increase in the as-found 
MSSV setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%. 
Generic and plant specific analyses and evaluations indicate that 
the plant response to any previously evaluated event will remain 
acceptable. All plant systems, structures, and components will 
continue to be capable of performing their required safety function 
as required by event analysis guidance.
    The proposed TS changes do not alter the MSSV nominal lift 
setpoints or MSSV lift setpoint test frequency. The operation and 
response of the affected equipment important to safety is unchanged. 
All systems, structures, and components will continue to be operated 
within acceptable operating and/or design parameters. No system, 
structure, or component will be subjected to a condition that has 
not been evaluated and determined to be acceptable using the 
guidance required for specific event analysis.
    The change to correct the reference to ``IWV-3510 of Section XI 
of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code'' in TS 4.3.E is an 
administrative change and does not affect the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
identified.
    3. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS changes allow for an increase in the as-found 
MSSV setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%. The 
proposed TS changes do not alter the MSSV nominal lift setpoints or 
MSSV lift setpoint test

[[Page 2589]]

frequency. The operation and response of the affected equipment 
important to safety is unchanged. All systems, structures, and 
components will continue to be operated within acceptable operating 
and/or design parameters. While the calculated peak reactor vessel 
pressure for the ASME overpressure event is higher than that 
calculated without the increase in setpoint tolerance, it is still 
within the respective licensing acceptance limits associated with 
this event. These licensing acceptance limits have been determined 
by the NRC to provide a sufficient margin of safety.
    The increase in MSSV steam flow and reactor vessel pressure does 
not reduce the margin of safety associated with the MSSVs and 
associated components and structures since the increased MSSV steam 
flow rate and reactor vessel pressure are bounded by the current 
design analysis.
    The margin of safety for fuel thermal limits and 10 CFR 50.46 
limits are unaffected by the proposed change.
    The margin of safety for the Containment is unaffected by the 
proposed change.
    The capability of the SLC system and the CRD system to perform 
their safety functions during all required events, using the 
required guidance for event analysis, is maintained. Therefore, the 
proposed changes do not reduce the margin of safety provided by the 
SLC and CRD systems.
    The change to correct the reference to ``IWV-3510 of Section XI 
of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code'' in TS 4.3.E is an 
administrative change and does not affect the margin of safety.
    Therefore, these proposed TS changes do not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LCC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-
318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert 
County, Maryland

    Date of amendments request: November 3, 2005.
    Description of amendments request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the accident source term in the design-basis radiological 
consequences analyses and the associated Technical Specifications 
(TSs), pursuant to section 50.67 of part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.67). The proposed amendments would 
provide for the full implementation of the alternate source term (AST) 
in accordance with the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.183, 
``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis 
Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors.'' The proposed amendments would 
also increase the flow rate for the control room emergency ventilation 
system (CREVS) from 2000 to 10000 cubic feet per minute in TS 5.5.11, 
``Ventilation Filter Testing Program,'' by means of a modification to 
the CREVS. In addition, automatic isolation dampers and radiation 
monitors will also be installed at access control heating, ventilating, 
and air conditioning (HVAC) unit no. RTU-1 and access control air 
conditioning unit no. 13.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The results of the applicable radiological design basis 
accidents (DBAs) re-evaluation demonstrated that, with the requested 
changes, the dose consequences of these limiting events are within 
the regulatory limits and guidance provided by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission in 10 CFR 50.67 and Regulatory Guide 1.183 for 
AST methodology. The AST is an input to calculations used to 
evaluate the consequences of an accident and does not by itself 
affect the plant response or the actual pathway of the activity 
released from the fuel. It does, however, better represent the 
physical characteristics of the release such that appropriate 
mitigation techniques may be applied.
    The change from the original source term to the new proposed AST 
is a change in the analysis method and assumptions and has no effect 
on accident initiators or causal factors that contribute to the 
probability of occurrence of previously analyzed accidents. Use of 
an AST to analyze the dose effect of DBAs shows that regulatory 
acceptance criteria for the new methodology continues to be met. 
Changing the analysis methodology does not change the sequence or 
progression of the accident scenario.
    The proposed Technical Specification changes reflect the plant 
configuration that will either support implementation of the AST 
analyses or eliminate requirements that are no longer needed as a 
result of the revised DBA analyses. The equipment affected by the 
proposed changes is mitigative in nature and relied upon after an 
accident has been initiated. The operation of various filtration 
systems have been considered in the evaluations for these proposed 
changes. While the operation of some systems does change with the 
implementation of an AST, the affected systems are not accident 
initiators; and application of the AST methodology, itself, is not 
an initiator of a DBA.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    As described in Item 1 above, the changes proposed in this 
license amendment request involve the use of a new analysis 
methodology and related regulatory acceptance criteria. The proposed 
Technical Specification changes reflect the plant configuration that 
will either support implementation of the new methodology or 
eliminate requirements that are no longer needed as a result of the 
new methodology. No new or different accidents result from utilizing 
the proposed changes. Although the proposed changes require 
modification to the Control Room emergency ventilation system and 
installation of automatic isolation dampers and radiation monitors 
at Access Control HVAC Unit RTU-1 and Access Control Air 
Conditioning Unit 13 on the Auxiliary Building roof, none of these 
changes can initiate a new or different kind of accident since they 
are only related to system capabilities that provide protection from 
accidents that have already occurred. As a result, no new failure 
modes are being introduced that could lead to different accidents. 
These changes do not alter the nature of events postulated in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report nor do they introduce any 
unique precursor mechanisms.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    As described in Item 1 above, the changes proposed in this 
license amendment request involve the use of a new analysis 
methodology and related regulatory acceptance criteria. The proposed 
Technical Specification changes reflect the plant configuration that 
will either support implementation of the new methodology or 
eliminate requirements that are no longer needed as a result of the 
new methodology. Safety margins and analytical conservatisms have 
been evaluated and have been found acceptable. The analyzed events 
have been carefully selected and, with plant modification, margin 
has been retained to ensure that the analyses adequately bound 
postulated event scenarios. The analyses have been performed using 
conservative methodologies, as specified in Regulatory Guide 1.183. 
The dose consequences of these DBAs remain within the acceptance 
criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67, ``Accident Source Term,'' and 
Regulatory Guide 1.183. The proposed changes continue to ensure that 
the doses at the exclusion area boundary and low population zone 
boundary, as well as the Control Room, are within corresponding 
regulatory limits.

[[Page 2590]]

    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 amendments request involves no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Carey Fleming, Sr. Counsel--Nuclear 
Generation, Constellation Generation Group, LLC, 750 East Pratt 
Street, 17th floor, Baltimore, MD 21202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Richard J. Laufer.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-352, Limerick Generating 
Station, Unit 1, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: December 14, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
modifies the Technical Specifications (TSs) to incorporate a revised 
Single Loop Operation Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLO 
SLMCPR) due to the cycle-specific analysis.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:
    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The derivation of the cycle specific Single Loop Operation 
Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLO SLMCPR) for 
incorporation into the Technical Specifications (TS), and its use to 
determine cycle-specific thermal limits, has been performed using 
the methodology discussed in ``General Electric Standard Application 
for Reactor Fuel,'' NEDE-24011-P-A-15 (GESTAR-II), and U.S. 
Supplement, NEDE-24011-P-A-15-US, September, 2005, which includes 
Amendment 25. Amendment 25 was approved by the NRC in a March 11, 
1999 safety evaluation report.
    The basis of the SLO SLMCPR calculation is to ensure that 
greater than 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core avoid transition 
boiling if the limit is not violated. The new SLO SLMCPR preserves 
the existing margin to transition boiling. The GE-14 fuel is in 
compliance with Amendment 22 to ``General Electric Standard 
Application for Reactor Fuel,'' NEDE-24011-P-A-15 (GESTAR-II), and 
U.S. Supplement, NEDE-24011-P-A-15-US, September 2005, which 
provides the fuel licensing acceptance criteria. The probability of 
fuel damage will not be increased as a result of this change. 
Therefore, the proposed TS 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 SLO SLMCPR is a TS numerical value, calculated to ensure 
that transition boiling does not occur in 99.9% of all fuel rods in 
the core if the limit is not violated. The new SLO SLMCPR is 
calculated using NRC approved methodology discussed in ``General 
Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,'' NEDE-24011-P-A-15 
(GESTAR-II), and U.S. Supplement, NEDE-24011-P-A-15-US, September 
2005, which includes Amendment 25. Additionally, the GE-14 fuel is 
in compliance with Amendment 22 to ``General Electric Standard 
Application for Reactor Fuel,'' NEDE-24011-P-A-15 (GESTAR-II), and 
U.S. Supplement, NEDE-24011-P-A-15-US, September, 2005, which 
provides the fuel licensing acceptance criteria. The SLO SLMCPR is 
not an accident initiator, and its revision will 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.
    There is no significant reduction in the margin of safety 
previously approved by the NRC as a result of the proposed change to 
the SLO SLMCPR, which includes the use of GE-14 fuel. The new SLO 
SLMCPR is calculated using methodology discussed in ``General 
Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,'' NEDE-24011-P-A-15 
(GESTAR-II), and U.S. Supplement, NEDE-24011-P-A-15-US, September, 
2005, which includes Amendment 25. The SLO SLMCPR ensures that 
greater than 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core will avoid 
transition boiling if the limit is not violated when all 
uncertainties are considered, thereby preserving the fuel cladding 
integrity.
    Therefore, the proposed TS change will not involve a significant 
reduction in [a] margin of safety previously approved by the NRC.
    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. Brad Fewell, Assistant General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett 
Square, PA 19348.
    NRC Branch Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment revises 
the Technical Specifications by relocating the Pressure Isolation 
Valve (PIV) tables to the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM).
    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 relocation of Technical Specification Table 
3.4.3.2-1 does not alter the requirements for pressure isolation 
valve operability or surveillance currently in the Technical 
Specifications. The proposed change to remove the pressure isolation 
valve table from TS and relocate the information to an 
administratively controlled document, and to revise the wording in 
TS to reflect this change, will have no impact on any safety related 
structures, systems or components. The probability of occurrence of 
a previously evaluated accident is not increased because this change 
does not introduce any new potential accident initiating conditions. 
The consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR 
[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] are not affected because the 
ability of the PIVs to limit leakage through these valves in amounts 
that do not compromise safety is not affected. Therefore, the 
proposed changes do 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 changes are administrative in nature and do not 
result in physical alterations or changes in the method by which any 
safety related system performs its intended function(s). The 
proposed changes do not impact any safety analysis assumptions. The 
proposed changes do not create any new accident initiators or 
involve an activity that could be an initiator of an accident of a 
different type.
    All PIVs and alarm instrumentation will continue to be tested to 
the same rigorous requirements as defined in the Technical 
Specification Surveillance Requirements. The proposed revision does 
not make changes in any method of testing or how any safety related 
system performs its safety functions. Therefore, the possibility of 
an accident of a different type than any previously evaluated in the 
UFSAR is not created.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The administrative change to relocate Technical Specification 
Table 3.4.3.2-1 to the Technical Requirements Manual does not alter 
the basic regulatory requirement for Reactor Coolant System pressure 
isolation and will not affect the isolation capability for credible 
accident scenarios. Future revisions to the Technical Requirements 
Manual Table will be subject to evaluation pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59.
    Additionally, the proposed relocation does not alter the 
requirements for pressure isolation valve and alarm instrumentation 
operability currently in the Technical Specifications. The LCO 
[limiting condition for operation] and Surveillance Requirements 
will be retained in the revised Technical Specifications. The 
proposed change will not affect the meaning, application, and 
function of the current Technical Specification requirements for the 
valves in Table 3.4.3.2-1. Therefore, the proposed changes do not 
result in a significant reduction in [a] margin of safety.


[[Page 2591]]


    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. Brad Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 
19348.
    NRC Branch Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC, licensee), Docket No. 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS), Unit 2, Rock Island County, 
Illinois

    Date of amendment request: December 15, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change revises the 
values of the safety limit minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) in 
Technical Specification (TS) section 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs.'' 
Specifically, the proposed change would require that for Unit 2, the 
minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) for Global Nuclear Fuel (GNF) fuel 
shall be >=1.09 for two recirculation loop operation, or >=1.10 for 
single recirculation loop operation. Additionally, the proposed change 
would require that MCPR for Westinghouse fuel shall be >=1.11 for two 
recirculation loop operation, or >=1.13 for single recirculation loop 
operation.
    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:

    According to 10 CFR 50.92, ``Issuance of amendment,'' paragraph 
(c), a proposed amendment to an operating license involves no 
significant hazards consideration if 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.
    EGC has evaluated the proposed change to the TS for QCNPS, Unit 
2, using the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92, and has determined that the 
proposed change does not involve a significant hazards 
consideration. The following information is provided to support a 
finding of no significant hazards consideration.
    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the 
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The 
consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the 
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those 
consequences. Limits have been established consistent with NRC-
approved methods to ensure that fuel performance during normal, 
transient, and accident conditions is acceptable. The proposed 
change conservatively establishes the SLMCPR for QCNPS, Unit 2, 
Cycle 19 such that the fuel is protected during normal operation and 
during plant transients or anticipated operational occurrences 
(AOOs).
    Changing the SLMCPR does not increase the probability of an 
evaluated accident. The change does not require any physical plant 
modifications, physically affect any plant components, or entail 
changes in plant operation. Therefore, no individual precursors of 
an accident are affected.
    The proposed change revises the SLMCPR to protect the fuel 
during normal operation as well as during plant transients or AOOs. 
Operational limits will be established based on the proposed SLMCPR 
to ensure that the SLMCPR is not violated. This will ensure that the 
fuel design safety criterion (i.e., that at least 99.9% of the fuel 
rods do not experience transition boiling during normal operation 
and AOOs) is met. Since the proposed change does not affect 
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate any consequences 
of accidents, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated 
are not expected to increase.
    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.
    Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident would require creating one or more new accident precursors. 
New accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant 
configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation.
    The proposed change does not involve any plant configuration 
modifications or changes to allowable modes of operation. The 
proposed change to the SLMCPR assures that safety criteria are 
maintained for QCNPS, Unit 2, Cycle 19.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The SLMCPR provides a margin of safety by ensuring that at least 
99.9% of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling during 
normal operation and AOOs if the MCPR limit is not violated. The 
proposed change will ensure the appropriate level of fuel protection 
by continuing to ensure that at least 99.9% of the fuel rods do not 
experience transition boiling during normal operation and AOOs if 
the MCPR limit is not violated. Additionally, operational limits 
will be established based on the proposed SLMCPR to ensure that the 
SLMCPR is not violated. This will ensure that the fuel design safety 
criteria (i.e., that no more than 0.1% of the rods are expected to 
be in boiling transition if the MCPR limit is not violated) are met.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based upon the above, EGC concludes that the proposed amendment 
presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards 
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of no 
significant hazards consideration is justified.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Brad Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Mindy S. Landau.

First Energy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry 
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (PNPP), Lake County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: November 21, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the acceptance criteria of Technical Specification (TS) 
Surveillance Requirements (SRs) associated with TS 3.8.1, ``AC 
Sources--Operating,'' to modify the Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) 
start tests to provide minimum voltage and frequency limits and clarify 
other limits as steady state parameters. Specifically, the amendment 
would revise SRs 3.8.1.2, 3.8.1.7, 3.8.1.12, 3.8.1.15 and 3.8.1.20. 
This change is consistent with the approved Technical Specification 
Task Force Traveler (TSTF) 163, Revision 2.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration which is presented below:

    1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change is a LAR (license amendment request) that 
modifies the acceptance criteria for the PNPP TS SRs pertaining to 
the EDGs. The EDGs mitigate the consequences of previously evaluated

[[Page 2592]]

accidents involving a loss of offsite power. The EDGs are used to 
support mitigation of the consequences of an accident, but they are 
not considered as the initiator of any previously analyzed accident.
    The proposed LAR does not change the manner in which the EDGs 
are operated and when implemented will continue to ensure the EDGs 
perform their function when called upon. The proposed revision to 
the TS SRs will continue to ensure that minimum frequency and 
voltage are attained within the required time. The SRs will continue 
to ensure that proper steady state voltage and frequency are 
attained consistent with proper EDG governor and voltage regulator 
performance.
    The proposed LAR does not affect the design of the EDGs, the 
operational characteristics of the EDGs, the interfaces between the 
EDGs and other plant systems, the function, or reliability of the 
EDGs. Thus, the EDGs will be capable of performing their accident 
mitigation function and there is no impact to the radiological 
consequences of any accident analysis.
    As such, the proposed change continues to provide adequate 
assurance of operable EDGs and does not involve any increase to the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed change would not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    The proposed LAR introduces no new mode of plant operation and 
it does not involve physical modification to the plant. New 
equipment is not installed with the proposed LAR, nor does the 
proposed LAR cause existing equipment to be operated in a new or 
different manner.
    Since the proposed changes do not involve a change to the plant 
design or operation, no new system interactions are created by this 
change. The proposed LAR does not produce any parameters or 
conditions that could contribute to the initiation of accidents 
different from those already evaluated in the Updated Safety 
Analysis Report.
    The changes to the affected TS SRs do not affect the assumed 
accident performance of the EDGs, nor any plant structure, system or 
component previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed LAR does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.
    The proposed change is a LAR that does not impact EDG 
performance, including the capability for each EDG to attain and 
maintain required voltage and frequency for accepting and supporting 
plant safety loads within the required time, as assumed in the plant 
safety analysis.
    The proposed LAR does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety since the operability of the EDGs continues to be 
determined as required to support the capability of the EDGs to 
provide emergency power to plant equipment that mitigate the 
consequences of an accident.
    The proposed LAR does not introduce changes to setpoints or 
limits established or assumed by the accident analysis. Therefore, 
implementation of the proposed LAR 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: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 
Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: Mindy Landau, Acting.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 6, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 Technical Specification 
3.8.3.1, ``Onsite Power Distribution,'' to extend the allowed outage 
time for balance-of-plant vital inverters 1-EDE-I-1E and 1-EDE-I-1F 
from 24 hours to 7 days.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change extends the allowed outage time (AOT) for 
the balance-of-plant (BOP) instrument bus inverters from 24 hours to 
7 days. The BOP instrument bus inverters do not solely support any 
risk-significant functions. The failure of an inverter is not an 
initiator of any analyzed event and does not increase the frequency 
of an initiating event. Consequently, extending the AOT will not 
have an impact on the frequency of occurrence of any event 
previously analyzed. The proposed change does not alter the design, 
configuration, operation, or function of any plant system, 
structure, or component. As a result, the outcomes of previously 
evaluated accidents are unaffected. Therefore, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. 
The proposed change does not challenge the performance or integrity 
of any safety-related system. The proposed change neither installs 
nor removes any plant equipment, not alters the design, physical 
configuration, or mode of operation of any plant structure, system, 
or component. Installed equipment will not be operated in a new or 
different manner. No physical changes are being made to the plant, 
so no new accident causal mechanisms are being introduced. 
Procedures that ensure the unit operates within analyzed limits and 
procedures that respond to off-normal and emergency conditions are 
not altered with this proposed change. Therefore, the proposed 
change does not create the possibility of a new or different 
accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in [a] margin of safety.
    The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of 
any accident is unchanged. The proposed change does not alter the 
design, configuration, operation, or function of any plant system, 
structure, or component. The ability of any operable structure, 
system, or component to perform its designated safety function is 
unaffected by this change. Operation with one instrument bus 
inverter inoperable and the associated instrument bus aligned to its 
maintenance supply does not result in a significant reduction in [a] 
margin of safety. Surveillance testing of the emergency diesel 
generators (EDGs) and the electrical distribution system provides 
confidence that the EDGs will energize the emergency AC buses 
following a loss of power. 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: M. S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 
County, Wisconsin

    Date of amendment request: November 12, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.7, ``Inservice Testing 
Program,'' and TS 5.5.8, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube Surveillance 
Program,'' to update references to the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Code) and certain 
associated periodicities for inservice testing activities consistent 
with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR) section 50.55a, ``Codes and standards.''

[[Page 2593]]

The proposed amendment would also correct a typographical error 
contained in TS 5.5.8.b.2.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration which is presented below:

    1. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with 
the proposed amendments does not result in a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change revises Technical Specifications for 
consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) and 10 CFR 
50.55a(g)(4).
    The proposed change incorporates revisions to the ASME Code that 
result in a net improvement in the measures for testing pumps and 
valves.
    The proposed change does not involve any hardware changes, nor 
does it affect the probability of any event initiators. There will 
be no change to normal plant operating parameters, engineered safety 
feature actuation setpoints, accident mitigation capabilities, or 
accident analysis assumptions or inputs.
    Therefore, the probability or consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated will not be significantly increased as a result 
of the proposed change.
    2. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with 
the proposed amendments does not result in a new or different kind 
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change incorporates revisions to the ASME Code that 
result in a net improvement in the measures for testing. The 
proposed change does not involve a modification to the physical 
configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be 
installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different 
requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident 
precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there is no 
change in the types or increases in the amounts of any effluent that 
may be released off-site and there is no increase in individual or 
cumulative occupational exposure.
    Equipment important to safety will continue to operate as 
designed. The changes do not result in any event previously deemed 
incredible been made credible. The changes do not result in adverse 
conditions or result in any increase in the challenges to safety 
systems. Therefore, operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not create the 
possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with 
the proposed amendments does not result in a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change incorporates revisions to the ASME Code that 
result in a net improvement in the measures for testing. The safety 
function of the affected components will be maintained.
    There are no new or significant changes to the initial 
conditions contributing to accident severity or consequences. The 
proposed amendment will not otherwise affect the plant protective 
boundaries, will not cause a release of fission products to the 
public, nor will it degrade the performance of any other structures, 
systems or components (SSCs) important to safety. Therefore, the 
requested change will not result in a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 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 Branch Chief: L. Raghavan.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: October 11, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise certain 18-month Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance 
Requirements (SRs) to eliminate the condition that testing be conducted 
during shutdown.
    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 changes permit PSEG to evaluate the conditions 
required to safely perform a TS SR. These surveillance tests verify 
that equipment will perform its intended safety function of 
mitigating an accident. No analyzed accident scenario is being 
revised. The initiating conditions and assumptions for accidents 
described in the Hope Creek Generating Station Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) remain as previously analyzed.
    The proposed changes do not reduce the ability of the mitigating 
equipment to perform its safety function. The TS will continue to 
require the surveillance tests to be performed on an eighteen-month 
periodicity to verify operability. As a result, the ability of the 
mitigating equipment to perform its safety function is unaffected by 
the proposed change.
    The capitalization change is proposed to improve readability and 
does not alter any requirement.
    Based upon the above, the proposed changes will not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously analyzed.
    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 changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated in 
the UFSAR. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or 
limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed 
changes. Specifically, no new hardware is being added to the plant 
as part of the proposed change, no existing equipment is being 
modified, and no significant changes in operations are being 
introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes will not alter any assumptions, initial 
conditions, or results of any accident analyses. The proposed 
changes to remove the requirement to perform certain testing during 
shutdown conditions allows PSEG to evaluate the conditions needed to 
safely perform the required testing. There is no change to the 
frequency of testing or in the testing that is required. There is no 
change in the responsibility of PSEG to perform tests in a safe and 
responsible manner. Any changes to procedures will have to be 
individually evaluated to ensure that they do not reduce the margin 
of safety. The changes do not affect the ability of systems, 
structures or components to perform their safety related functions. 
In addition, the proposed changes do not affect the ability of the 
safety systems to ensure that the facility can be maintained in a 
shutdown or refueling condition for extended periods of time.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business 
Unit--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.

[[Page 2594]]

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2005; as supplemented 
December 8, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
relocate the containment high range accident monitors from the 
radiation monitoring instrumentation technical specification (TS) to 
the accident monitoring TS and correct a typographical error contained 
in a previous amendment.
    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 change presents no change in the probability of a 
previously evaluated accident.
    The proposed change presents no change in the consequence of an 
accident, since the containment high range accident monitors are 
used post-accident to determine the amount of core damage and status 
of the fission product barriers.
    The containment high range accident monitors are used post 
accident to assess the conditions inside containment. They have an 
automatic function to switch the subcooling margin monitor (SCMM) to 
``adverse'' mode (i.e., it displays a more conservative indication 
of the amount of subcooling in the RCS) [reactor coolant system]. 
Additionally, the containment high range accident monitors provide 
an indication that is used post accident in determining the status 
of the fission product barriers. There will be no change in the 
operation or use of the containment high range accident monitors.
    The remaining change is editorial in nature and does not impact 
the accident analysis in any manner.
    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 is a minor change that is administrative in 
nature. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. 
No new hardware is added, existing hardware is not modified and no 
significant changes in operations are implemented. Post accident 
monitoring instrumentation is not associated with the initiation of 
an accident.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
[a] margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety systems settings or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The proposed change will not alter any 
assumptions, initial conditions or results specified in any accident 
analysis.
    There is no change in the containment high range accident 
monitor high level alarm setpoint. The ECS [electronic check source] 
is functionally equivalent to the TS definition of SOURCE CHECK.

    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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business 
Unit--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, 
Unit No. 2, Salem County, New Jersey