63560 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Notices 

Dated: October 29, 2004. 

Vicky D’Onofrio, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–24556 Filed 10–29–04; 2:04 am] 

BILLING CODE 7533–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–443] 

FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Seabrook 

Station, Unit No. 1; Notice of 

Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) is 

considering issuance of an amendment 

to Facility Operating License No. NPF–

86 issued to FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC 

(the licensee), for operation of the 

Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, located in 

Rockingham County, New Hampshire. 

The proposed amendment would 

revise the allowed outage times of 

Technical Specification 3.3.3.6, 

‘‘Accident Monitoring Instrumentation,’’

to be consistent with the completion 

times in the related specification in 

NUREG–1431, Revision 3, ‘‘Standard 

Technical Specifications Westinghouse 

Plants.’’

Before issuance of the proposed 

license amendment, the Commission 

will have made findings required by the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s 

regulations. 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. Under 

the Commission’s regulations in Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR), Section 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. 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 changes revise the actions 

and allowed outage times (AOT) for 

inoperable post-accident monitoring (PAM) 

instrumentation. The PAM instrumentation 

is not an initiator of any previously evaluated 

accident. Furthermore, the PAM instruments 

are passive devices; the instruments do not 

actuate or control any plant systems or 

components. As a result, the probability of 

any accident previously evaluated is not 

increased by these proposed changes. While 

this change extends the AOT for inoperable 

instruments, the Technical Specifications 

will continue to require the availability of 

operable PAM instrumentation for 

monitoring and assessing specific plant 

parameters during and following an accident. 

The PAM instruments have no impact on the 

ability of systems to perform the safety 

functions of shutting down the reactor, 

removing decay heat, controlling radioactive 

releases, or mitigating accident 

consequences. The length of time that a PAM 

instrument has been inoperable has no effect 

on the consequences of an accident should 

an accident occur. As a result, extending the 

AOT for these instruments will not 

significantly increase the consequences of 

accidents previously evaluated. 

2. The proposed changes do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any [accident] previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed changes neither install or 

remove any plant equipment, nor alter the 

design, physical configuration, or mode of 

operation of any plant structure, system, or 

component. The accident monitoring 

instrumentation consists of passive devices 

and is not an initiator of any accident. No 

physical changes are being made to the plant, 

so no new accident causal mechanisms are 

being introduced. Therefore, operation of the 

facility in accordance with the proposed 

amendments will not create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

previously evaluated. 

3. The proposed changes do not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The proposed changes do 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. 

These proposed changes allow an 

appropriate time to restore inoperable PAM 

instruments to operable status when one or 

more channels of a required instrument 

function become inoperable. The additional 

time to restore an inoperable channel to 

operable status is appropriate based on the 

low probability of an event requiring the 

accident monitoring instrumentation during 

the interval, providing a reasonable time for 

repair of the instrumentation, and alternate 

means of obtaining the required information. 

Moreover, with the exception of the 

containment post-LOCA [loss-of-coolant 

accident] high range area monitor (as 

currently licensed) this change retains the 

requirement to shut down the plant if less 

than a minimum number of instrument 

channels of the required parameters are 

operable. Therefore, operation of the facility 

in accordance with the proposed amendment 

will not involve a significant reduction in the 

margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 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 6D59, Two 

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room, located at One White 

Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland. 

The filing of requests for 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Notices 63561

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 O1 F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. (Note:

Public access to ADAMS has been 

temporarily suspended so that security 

reviews of publicly available documents 

may be performed and potentially 

sensitive information removed. Please 

check the NRC Web site for updates on 

the resumption of ADAMS access.) If a 

request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene is filed by the above 

date, 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 

requestors/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify 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 basis 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner/requestor must 

also provide references to those specific 

sources and documents of which the 

petitioner is aware and on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to establish 

those facts or expert opinion. 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 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, 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. 

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). 

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 email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy 

of the request for hearing and petition 

for leave to intervene should also be 

sent to M. S. Ross, Florida Power & 

Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno 

Beach, FL 33408–0420, attorney for the 

licensee. 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendment dated October 22, 2004, 

which is available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s PDR, located at 

One White Flint North, File Public Area 

O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 

available records will be accessible from 

the Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System’s (ADAMS) Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site, http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

Persons who do not have access to 

ADAMS or who encounter problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR 

Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–

397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail 

to pdr@nrc.gov. (Note: Public access to 

ADAMS has been temporarily 

suspended so that security reviews of 

publicly available documents may be 

performed and potentially sensitive 

information removed. Please check the 

NRC Web site for updates on the 

resumption of ADAMS access.)

Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 27th 

day of October 2004. 

63562 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Notices 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Scott P. Wall, 

Project Manager, Section 2, Project 

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project 

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 04–24388 Filed 11–1–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–219] 

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC; 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating 

Station; Environmental Assessment 

and Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of an exemption from certain 

requirements of Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, 

appendix J, for Facility Operating 

License No. DPR–16, which authorizes 

operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear 

Generating Station (OCNGS), a boilingwater reactor facility, located in Ocean 

County, New Jersey. Therefore, as 

required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is 

issuing this environmental assessment 

and finding of no significant impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, appendix 

J, Option B, section III.B., ‘‘Type B and 

C Tests,’’ states, in part, that 

containment leakage tests must 

demonstrate that the sum of the leakage 

rates at accident pressure of Type B 

tests, and pathway leakage rates from 

Type C tests, is less than the 

performance criterion (La) with margin 

as specified in the Technical 

Specifications (TSs). In this context, 

‘‘accident pressure,’’ Pa, was previously 

analyzed to be 35 psig at OCNGS. 

Accordingly, for main steam isolation 

valves (MSIVs), leakage rate testing is to 

be done at the peak containment 

calculated pressure related to the 

design-basis accident. 

The licensee requested a permanent 

exemption from the requirements of the 

subject provision of appendix J, such 

that the MSIVs may be tested at lower 

pressures but not lower than 20 psig. By 

separate application also dated 

December 23, 2003, the licensee 

proposed to revise the OCNGS TSs, 

section 4.5.D, to specify the lower test 

pressure and associated leakage test 

rate; the NRC staff will address the 

proposed amendment by separate 

correspondence. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application for 

exemption dated December 23, 2003. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The licensee stated that, as a result of 

the design of the inboard and outboard 

MSIVs on each steam line, the preferred 

method of Type C testing is through the 

use of a between-the-valves test tap. 

Periodic Type C testing verifies that the 

leakage assumed in the radiological 

analysis is not exceeded. The licensee is 

requesting this exemption in order to 

reduce the probability of lifting the 

inboard MSIVs during testing. Testing of 

the two valves simultaneously at Pa, by 

pressurizing between the valves tends to 

lift the disc of the inboard valve. This 

results in test results which may not 

accurately reflect the isolation 

capabilities of the MSIVs. 

The licensee proposed an exemption 

from the requirements of 10 CFR part 

50, appendix J, Option B, section III.B, 

by specifying testing at a minimum of 

20 psig, instead of Pa, between the 

inboard and outboard MSIVs. This 

pressure would avoid lifting the disc of 

the inboard MSIV. The measured 

leakage rate for any one main steam line 

through the isolation valves will be 

limited to a proposed pathway leakage 

value of 11.9 standard cubic feet per 

hour (this proposed value will be 

evaluated in the safety evaluation of the 

associated amendment). All the changes 

addressed by the requested exemption 

(and associated amendment) are 

concerned with MSIV testing only, and 

do not affect MSIV design functions. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its safety 

evaluation of the proposed action and 

concludes that the alternative measures 

proposed by the licensee and discussed 

above will provide assurance that the 

primary reactor containment is an 

essentially leak tight barrier against 

uncontrolled release of radioactivity to 

the environment. The performance of 

the containment, including the MSIVs, 

will not be negatively affected by the 

proposed exemption. The details of the 

NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be 

provided in the exemption. 

The proposed exemption will not 

significantly increase the probability or 

consequences of accidents. No changes 

are being made in the types or quantities 

of radiological effluents that may be 

released. There is no significant increase 

in occupational or public radiation 

exposure. Therefore, there are no 

significant radiological environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 

action does not have a potential to affect 

any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no 

other environmental impact. Therefore, 

there are no significant non-radiological 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes 

that there are no significant 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the 

application would result in no change 

in current environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the alternative action are 

similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for OCNGS, 

dated December 1974, published by the 

Atomic Energy Commission. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on October 13, 2004, the NRC staff 

consulted with the New Jersey State 

official, Mr. Rich Pinney of the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Nuclear 

Engineering, regarding the 

environmental impact of the proposed 

action. The State official had no 

comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter 

dated December 23, 2003. Documents 

may be examined, and/or copied for a 

fee, at the NRC’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible electronically from 

the Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site, http://