27174 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices

The NRC contact for this licensing

action is Mary T. Adams, who may be

contacted at (301) 415–7249 or by e-mail

at mta@nrc.gov for more information

about the licensing action.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Lidia A. Roche,

Acting Chief, Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch,

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 01–11755 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards; Joint Meeting of the ACRS

Subcommittees on Materials and

Metallurgy, Thermal-Hydraulic

Phenomena, and Reliability and

Probabilistic Risk Assessment;

Cancellation

The joint meeting of the ACRS

Subcommittees on Materials and

Metallurgy, Thermal-Hydraulic

Phenomena, and Reliability and

Probabilistic Risk Assessment

scheduled for May 25, 2001, Room T–

2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland has been canceled. Notice of

this meeting was previously published

in the Federal Register on Tuesday,

May 8, 2001 (66 FR 23280).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Michael T. Markley cognizant ACRS

staff engineer, (telephone 301/415–

6885) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.

(EDT).

Dated: May 10, 2001.

James E. Lyons,

Associate Director for Technical Support,

ACRS/ACNW.

[FR Doc. 01–12337 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Biweekly Notice; Applications and

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses Involving No Significant

Hazards Considerations

I. Background

Pursuant to Public Law 97–415, the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(the Commission or NRC staff) is

publishing this regular biweekly notice.

Public Law 97–415 revised section 189

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (the Act), to require the

Commission to publish notice of any

amendments issued, or proposed to be

issued, under a new provision of section

189 of the Act. This provision grants the

Commission the authority to issue and

make immediately effective any

amendment to an operating license

upon a determination by the

Commission that such amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration, notwithstanding the

pendency before the Commission of a

request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all

notices of amendments issued, or

proposed to be issued from April 23,

2001, through May 4, 2001. The last

biweekly notice was published on May

2, 2001 (66 FR 22021).

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

following amendment requests involve

no significant hazards consideration.

Under the Commission’s regulations in

10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation

of the facility in accordance with the

proposed amendment would not (1)

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated; or (2)

create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated; or (3)

involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. The basis for this

proposed determination for each

amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received before

action is taken. Should the Commission

take this action, it will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of issuance

and provide for opportunity for a

hearing after issuance. The Commission

expects that the need to take this action

will occur very infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and should cite the publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. Written comments may

also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland from 7:30

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

Copies of written comments received

may be examined at the NRC Public

Document Room, located at One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The

filing of requests for a hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By June 15, 2001, the licensee may

file a request for a hearing with respect

to issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Publicly available records will be

accessible and electronically from the

ADAMS Public Library component on

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

(the Electronic Reading Room). If a

request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene is filed by the above

date, the Commission or an Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board, designated

by the Commission or by the Chairman

of the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board Panel, will rule on the request

and/or petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of a hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices 27175

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemaking and Adjudications Branch,

or may be delivered to the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

located at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland 20852, by the above date. A

copy of the petition should also be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to the

attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for a hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that

the petition and/or request should be

granted based upon a balancing of

factors specified in 10 CFR

2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment which is available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Publicly available records will be

accessible and electronically from the

ADAMS Public Library component on

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

(the Electronic Reading Room).

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,

Columbia Generating Station, Benton

County, Washington

Date of amendment request: April 16,

2001.

Description of amendment request:

Energy Northwest is requesting approval

for a change to the facility as described

by the Final Safety Analysis Report

(FSAR). The change allows for an

unisolable drain line between the

reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) and

control rod drive/condensate (CRD/

COND) pump rooms. This change will

modify the requirements that the RCIC

and CRD/COND pump rooms be waterresistant or watertight, and connected

by an isolable drain line.

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 to allow operation of

the plant with an open drain line between

the RCIC and CRD/COND pump rooms does

not increase the chances of a flooding event

occurring in the RCIC or CRD/COND pump

rooms. Also, operating the plant with an

open drain line between the RCIC and CRD/

COND pump rooms does not increase the

radiological consequences of any previously

evaluated accidents. A conservative revision

to the flooding safe shutdown analysis,

which combines the effects on equipment of

both rooms flooding simultaneously, shows

that sufficient safe shutdown equipment

remains available and safe plant shutdown

can be accomplished. Remaining systems are

the same as the equipment providing the safe

shutdown path approved by the NRC for

Appendix R post-fire safe shutdown

scenarios. Furthermore, the effects of the

postulated flood from a pipe crack plus other

normal leakage spread over the large floor

area of the combined RCIC and CRD/COND

rooms results in a flood event that develops

slowly. If credited, safety-related leak

detection instrumentation is available to

provide plant operators more time to

terminate the flood and limit the amount of

equipment potentially lost from the event.

With consideration of operator action and

mitigation, the flood could be terminated

quickly with minimal components affected.

Plant procedures provide direction for

operators to take actions to mitigate floods.

The proposed change to remove the

requirement that pump room wall

penetrations and doors located in the Reactor

Building be ‘‘water-resistant’’ or ‘‘watertight’’

does not contribute to the likelihood that a

flooding event will occur, nor does it

increase the radiological dose received in any

previously evaluated accidents. Reactor

Building pump room doors and penetrations

will exhibit a minimal amount of leakage

during a flooding event, and have seals that

can leak yet still minimize flooding between

rooms even with significant hydrostatic

pressure generated from flooding water

levels. The minimal water leakage past these

seals is consistent with assumptions

documented in the existing flooding analysis.

Therefore, operation of Columbia

Generating Station in accordance with the

proposed amendment will not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

27176 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed change to allow an

unisolable drain line between the RCIC and

CRD/COND pump rooms is accounted for in

a revised and conservative flooding safe

shutdown analysis. The flooding safe

shutdown analysis documents the impact of

flooding on equipment in the pump rooms,

and on electrical circuits routed through, but

not terminated in, the RCIC and CRD/COND

pump rooms. From this analysis no link

could be established between affected

systems and mechanisms that could create a

new or different kind of accident. The

analysis also concluded that the effects of the

unisolable drain line and subsequent flood

would not cause a transient that would be

imposed on the current analysis that assumes

a flood with a single active failure. Therefore,

the unisolable line between the RCIC and

CRD/COND rooms will not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident. The proposed change to allow

minimal water leakage past ECCS

[Emergency Core Cooling System], RCIC and

CRD/COND pump room doors and

penetrations is consistent with and

documented in existing flooding analysis

assumptions. These rooms do not need to be

water-resistant or watertight.

Therefore, operation of Columbia

Generating 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.

3. The proposed change does not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed change to allow an

unisolable drain line between the RCIC and

CRD/COND pump rooms does not result in

a significant reduction in the margin of

safety. The change is of very low risk

significance, with an increase in core damage

frequency of less than 1E–10. Furthermore, a

revised and conservative flooding safe

shutdown analysis has concluded, as with

previous flooding analysis for the ECCS,

RCIC and CRD/COND pump rooms, that the

ability to safely shutdown the plant has been

preserved when considering a flooding

scenario which impacts both the RCIC and

CRD/COND pump rooms. In addition, safetyrelated leak detection instrumentation is

available and could be credited to provide

plant operators more time to terminate the

flood and limit the amount of equipment

potentially lost from the event. With

consideration of operator action and

mitigation, the flood could be terminated

quickly with minimal components affected.

Plant procedures provide direction for

operators to take actions to mitigate flooding

in ECCS, RCIC and CRD/COND pump rooms.

The proposed change to allow minimal

water leakage past ECCS, RCIC and CRD/

COND pump room doors and penetrations

does not result in a significant reduction in

the margin of safety because it does not

prevent the plant from achieving safe

shutdown during a flooding event. Minimal

water leakage is consistent with and

documented in existing flooding analysis

assumptions.

Therefore, the operation of Columbia

Generating Station 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.

Attorney for licensee: Thomas C.

Poindexter, Esq., Winston & Strawn,

1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC

20005–3502.

NRC Section Chief: Stephen Dembek.

Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50–

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station,

Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

Date of amendment request: February

19, 2001.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed change to the Technical

Specifications (TS) modifies TS 3.6.5,

‘‘Vacuum Relief Valves,’’ limiting

condition for operation and extends the

allowed outage time from 4 hours to 72

hours for returning an inoperable

primary containment to annulus relief

valve to OPERABLE status. In addition,

Entergy proposes to delete Attachment 1

to the Waterford Steam Electric Station,

Unit 3 Operating License and revise

Condition 2.C.1 to reflect the deletion.

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 this proposed change

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated?

The proposed changes do not create any

new system interactions and have no impact

on operation or function of any system or

equipment in a way that could cause an

accident. The primary containment to

annulus vacuum relief valves are part of the

containment vacuum relief system and are

not initiators of any events nor affect any

accident initiators of any events previously

analyzed in Chapter 15 of the FSAR [Final

Safety Analysis Report].

The primary containment to annulus

vacuum relief valves are designed to mitigate

the consequences of an inadvertent

containment spray system actuation during

normal plant operation. The FSAR analysis

determined that with one of the two

containment vacuum lines failed, the

resultant peak calculated external pressure

load of 0.49 psi [pounds per square inch] on

the containment was less than the design

external pressure loading of 0.65 psi. These

proposed changes do not affect any of the

assumptions used in the analysis. Hence, the

consequences of the design basis accident

previously evaluated do not change.

Therefore, this change does not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of any accident previously

evaluated.

2. Will operation of the facility in

accordance with this proposed change create

the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

The proposed changes do not alter the

design, configuration, or the method of

operation of the plant. There is no change

being made to the parameters within which

the plant is operated. The setpoints at which

the protective or mitigative actions are

initiated are unaffected by this change. As

such, no new failure modes are being

introduced that would involve any potential

initiating events that would create any new

or different kind of accident.

Therefore, this change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any previously evaluated.

3. Will operation of the facility in

accordance with this proposed change

involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety?

The proposed changes do not affect the

bases used in or the results of the analysis

to establish the margin of safety. The margin

of safety is established through equipment

design, operating parameters, and the

setpoints at which automatic actions are

initiated. None of these are impacted by the

proposed change. The proposed change is

acceptable because it assures at least one

vacuum relief line will remain available in

the event of a single failure. This further

assures the ability to actuate upon demand

for the purpose of mitigating the

consequences of the design basis accident

(inadvertent actuation of the containment

spray system during normal operation). The

remaining vacuum relief line provides

sufficient vacuum relief capacity to prevent

exceeding the design external pressure

loading on containment of 0.65 psi. The

resultant calculated peak external pressure

loading on containment is 0.49 psi.

Therefore, this change does not involve a

significant reduction in the margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 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: N. S. Reynolds,

Esquire, Winston & Strawn 1400 L

Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–

3502.

NRC Section Chief: Robert A. Gramm.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station,

Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

Date of amendment request: April 2,

2001.

Description of amendment request:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59, Entergy

Operations, Inc. (the licensee) requests

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices 27177

review and approval of changes to the

Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit

3, design basis as described in the

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

(UFSAR) for which it has been

determined that an unreviewed safety

question exists. The change concerns

design requirements for the alignment of

the Refueling Water Storage Pool

(RWSP) boundary isolation valves to the

RWSP Purification System.

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:

The proposed change will allow the

manual valves (FS–423 and FS–404) that

isolate the RWSP from the RWSP Purification

System to be maintained open. The RWSP

Purification System is aligned to the RWSP

to maintain the purity and clarity of the

borated water contained in the pool. The

RWSP is also one of two means of makeup

to the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP), with the

Condensate Storage Pool being the primary

makeup source. These manual valves provide

the boundary between the seismically

qualified safety related RWSP and the nonseismic, non-safety related RWSP

Purification System.

(1) The proposed activity does not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of any accident previously

evaluated.

The RWSP is not involved in any initiating

event that could result in any accident. The

RWSP has a safety function that assists in

accident mitigation.

The proposed change has been reviewed

against Engineering Standards and Licensing

requirements contained in the Updated Final

Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). This review

has concluded that use of operator action to

isolate the RWSP Purification System

Boundary Isolation valves or secure the

RWSP Purification pump, as necessary, will

allow the RWSP to perform its safety

function in any plant mode. The RWSP,

however, is not required to perform a safety

function concurrent with a seismic event.

The highest estimated annual probability of

a small Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA)

while the purification system is aligned to

the SFP, and operator failure to isolate the

purification system, causing a diversion of

RWSP water that could affect the Emergency

Core Cooling System (ECCS) pumps is about

2.5E–8 per year, which is considered a

negligible risk.

Therefore, the proposed activity does not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of any accident

previously evaluated.

(2) The proposed activity does not create

the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The RWSP Purification System was

intended to be aligned periodically to the

RWSP. The proposed change will allow the

RWSP Purification System to be normally

aligned to the RWSP through manually

operated open valves. It has been shown that

operator action can be credited to isolate the

RWSP Purification System in a sufficient

time to ensure the safety function of the

RWSP is maintained. If Recirculation

Actuation Signal (RAS) occurs the isolation

valves will become inaccessible due to high

dose rates in the general area. However if the

RAS occurs before an operator can isolate the

RWSP (i.e. 54 minutes), the RWSP

Purification System would not have to be

isolated because the RWSP would have

fulfilled its required safety function.

The proposed alignment to maintain the

RWSP Purification System isolation valves

open introduces a new system interaction

during a LOCA. However, it has been

demonstrated the the safety function of the

RWSP is assured assuming the new system

interaction.

Therefore, the proposed activity does not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

(3) The proposed activity does not involve

a significant reduction [in] a margin of safety.

It has been evaluated that it will take no

more than 54 minutes for operations

personnel to isolate the RWSP. During this

time, approximately 1.4% of the RWSP level

could be depleted assuming maximum

leakage. This volume will be incorporated

into the analytical limit. The proposed

analytical limit will continue to assure the

safety limits evaluated in the Design Basis

Accident (DBA) analyses are maintained.

Therefore, this proposed activity does not

involve a significant reduction in the margin

of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 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: N. S. Reynolds,

Esquire, Winston & Strawn 1400 L

Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–

3502.

NRC Section Chief: Robert A. Gramm.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354,

Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem

County, New Jersey

Date of amendment request: April 2,

2001.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise

the Technical Specifications (TSs) to

relocate TSs 3/4.9.4, ‘‘Refueling

Operations, Decay Time;’’ 3/4.9.5,

‘‘Refueling Operations,

Communications;’’ 3/4.9.6, ‘‘Refueling

Operations, Refueling Platform;’’ and

3/4.9.7, ‘‘Refueling Operations, Crane

Travel-Spent Fuel Storage Pool;’’ to the

Hope Creek Updated Final Safety

Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed

amendment would also modify the

associated Bases pages and index pages.

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 requested amendments will not

involve an increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated. Relocation of the affected

Technical Specification sections and their

Bases to the Hope Creek UFSAR will have no

affect on the probability that any accident

will occur. Additionally, the consequences of

an accident will not be impacted because the

affected systems and components will

continue to be utilized in the same manner

as before. No impact on the plant response

to accidents will be created.

Based on the above, the proposed changes

do not significantly increase the probability

or consequences of any accident previously

evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed amendments will not create

the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated. No new accident causal

mechanisms will be created as a result of the

relocation of the affected Technical

Specification requirements and their Bases to

the Hope Creek UFSAR. Plant operation will

not be affected by the proposed amendments

and no new failure modes will be created.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously

evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed amendments will not

involve a reduction in the margin of safety.

Relocation of the affected Technical

Specification requirements to the Hope Creek

UFSAR is consistent with NUREG 1433,

[‘‘]Standard Technical Specifications,

General Electric Plants, BWR/4,[’’] Revision

1, dated April 1995, and with the NRC’s

Final Policy Statement on Technical

Specifications Improvements for Nuclear

Power Reactors (58 FR 39132), dated July 22,

1993, which encourages utilities to propose

amendments consistent with NUREG 1433.

The margin of safety is unchanged; 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,

27178 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices

P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ

08038.

NRC Section Chief: James W. Clifford.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Corporation, Docket No. 50–271,

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station,

Vernon, Vermont

Date of amendment request: April 17,

2001.

Description of amendment request:

The amendment would remove

unnecessary details for certain

secondary post-accident monitoring

instrumentation from Technical

Specification Table 3.2.6.

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 the proposed changes involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

The post accident monitoring (PAM)

instrumentation is not considered as an

initiator or contributor to any previously

evaluated accident. The proposed change

will not impact the ability of the PAM

instrumentation to perform its intended

function, nor does it impact any Final Safety

Analysis Report safety analysis. Therefore,

the proposed change will not increase the

probability of any accident previously

evaluated.

Additionally, while the PAM

instrumentation provides information to the

control room operator that may be used to

mitigate an accident, this change does not

affect the ability of the PAM instrumentation

to perform this function. This change does

not modify any parameters of previously

analyzed events.

Therefore, the proposed change will not

increase the consequences of any accident

previously evaluated.

2. Will the proposed changes create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

The proposed change does not involve any

physical modification to the plant, change in

Technical Specification setpoints, plant

operation, or design basis of the plant. The

PAM instrumentation provides information

to the plant operator to assist in the

mitigation of an accident, and the means for

accomplishment of this function are

unchanged. Under the proposed change,

operability of the PAM instrumentation is not

impacted. Therefore, this change does not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Will the proposed changes involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety?

The proposed change would delete

instrument identification numbers and

instrument ranges from Technical

Specifications for certain PAM

instrumentation. These details are not

necessary to ensure the PAM instrumentation

is maintained operable. The requirements of

Technical Specification Limiting Condition

for Operation and associated Surveillance

Requirements are adequate to ensure the

required instrumentation is maintained

operable. The proposed change will not

impact the ability of the PAM

instrumentation to perform its intended

function. Therefore, this 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: James W. Clifford.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating

Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf

Creek Generating Station, Coffey

County, Kansas

Date of amendment request: March

22, 2001 (ET 01–0007).

Description of amendment request:

The amendment would delete the

inequality (≤) in front of the allowed

temperature value and increase the

allowed methyl iodide penetration

values in item c of Technical

Specification 5.5.11, ‘‘Ventilation Filter

Testing Program (VFTP),’’ for the

engineered safety feature (ESF) control

room emergency ventilation system and

auxiliary/fuel building emergency

exhaust ventilation system.

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 changes revise the allowable

methyl iodide penetration percent for the

carbon in the Control Room Emergency

Ventilation System and the Auxiliary/Fuel

Building Emergency Exhaust System when

tested in accordance with ASTM D3803–

1989. The proposed change is based on the

values that would be derived using a safety

factor of 2 between credited and tested

carbon efficiencies. This use of a safety factor

of 2 is discussed in Generic Letter 99–02.

Generic Letter 99–02 allows the reduction of

the safety factor between the credited and

tested carbon efficiencies from 5 (for systems

with heaters) and 7 (for systems without

heaters) to 2 (for systems with or without

heaters) when tested in accordance with

ASTM D3803–1989. Analyses of design-basis

accidents assume a particular charcoal filter

adsorption efficiency when calculating offsite

and control room operator doses. A test of the

charcoal filter samples determines whether

the filter adsorber efficiency is greater than

that assumed in the design-basis accident

analysis. The laboratory test acceptance

criteria contain a safety factor to ensure that

the efficiency assumed in the accident

analysis is still valid at the end of the

operating cycle. Because ASTM D3803–1989

is a more accurate and demanding test, the

use of a safety factor of 2 provides an

acceptable adsorption efficiency greater than

that assumed in the safety analysis.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed changes revise the allowable

methyl iodide penetration percent for the

carbon in the Control Room Emergency

Ventilation System and the Auxiliary/Fuel

Building Emergency Exhaust System when

tested in accordance with ASTM D3803–

1989. The change in the allowable methyl

iodide penetration percent is based on the

values that would be derived using a safety

factor of 2 as provided in Generic Letter 99–

02. Generic Letter 99–02 allows the reduction

of the safety factor between the credited and

tested carbon efficiencies from 5 (for systems

with heaters) and 7 (for systems without

heaters) to 2 (for systems with or without

heaters) when tested in accordance with

ASTM D 3803–1989. No new or different

accident scenarios, transient precursors,

failure mechanisms, or limiting single

failures will be introduced as a result of

using a safety factor of 2 and deletion of the

inequality sign associated with the

temperature at which testing occurs.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not

create a new or different kind of accident

from any accident previously evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The charcoal adsorber sample laboratory

testing protocol accurately demonstrates the

required performance of the adsorbers in the

Control Room Emergency Ventilation System

and the Auxiliary Building Emergency

Exhaust System following a design basis

accident or in the Fuel Building Emergency

Exhaust System following a fuel handling

accident. The change in safety factor and

deletion of the inequality sign associated

with the temperature at which testing occurs

will not affect system performance or

operation. This use [of] a safety factor of 2

is discussed in Generic Letter 99–02. Generic

Letter 99–02 allows the reduction of the

safety factor between the credited and tested

carbon efficiencies from 5 (for systems with

heaters) and 7 (for systems without heaters)

to 2 (for systems with or without heaters)

when tested in accordance with ASTM

D3803–1989. Analyses of design-basis

accidents assume a particular charcoal filter

adsorption efficiency when calculating offsite

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices 27179

and control room operator doses. A test of the

charcoal filter samples determines whether

the filter adsorber efficiency is greater than

that assumed in the design-basis accident

analysis. The laboratory test acceptance

criteria contain a safety factor to ensure that

the efficiency assumed in the accident

analysis is still valid at the end of the

operating cycle. Because ASTM D3803–1989

is a more accurate and demanding test, the

use of a safety factor of 2 ensures the charcoal

filter adsorption efficiency is greater than

that assumed in the safety analysis when the

penetration acceptance criterion is met. The

offsite and control room dose analyses are

not affected by this change and will remain

within the limits of 10 CFR 100 and 10 CFR

50, Appendix A.

Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.

Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq.,

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge,

2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC

20037.

NRC Section Chief: Stephen Dembek.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to

Facility Operating Licenses

During the period since publication of

the last biweekly notice, the

Commission has issued the following

amendments. The Commission has

determined for each of these

amendments that the application

complies with the standards and

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the

Commission’s rules and regulations.

The Commission has made appropriate

findings as required by the Act and the

Commission’s rules and regulations in

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in

the license amendment.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for A Hearing in

connection with these actions was

published in the Federal Register as

indicated.

Unless otherwise indicated, the

Commission has determined that these

amendments satisfy the criteria for

categorical exclusion in accordance

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental

impact statement or environmental

assessment need be prepared for these

amendments. If the Commission has

prepared an environmental assessment

under the special circumstances

provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has

made a determination based on that

assessment, it is so indicated.

For further details with respect to the

action see (1) the applications for

amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)

the Commission’s related letter, Safety

Evaluation and/or Environmental

Assessment as indicated. All of these

items are available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, located at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),

Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly

available records will be accessible and

electronically from the ADAMS Public

Library component on the NRC Web

site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic

Reading Room).

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al.,

Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek

Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean

County, New Jersey

Date of application for amendment:

August 29, 2000.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment revised the Technical

Specifications to change the

‘‘Administrative Controls’’ section

regarding certain position titles and the

Shift Technical Advisor (STA) staffing

requirement to allow one of the required

on-shift Senior Reactor Operator (SRO)

positions to be combined with the

required STA position so as to serve in

a dual SRO/STA position.

Date of Issuance: April 27, 2001.

Effective date: April 27, 2001 and

shall be implemented within 30 days of

issuance.

Amendment No.: 220

Facilit Operating License No.DPR–16:

Amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: November 29, 2000 (65 FR

71133).

The Commission’s related evaluation

of this amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 27, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al.,

Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324,

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1

and 2, Brunswick County, North

Carolina

Date of application for amendments:

April 26, 2000, as supplemented

November 6, 2000.

Brief Description of amendments: The

amendments change the Technical

Specifications Ultimate Heat Sink

maximum 24-hour average temperature

from 89 degrees F to 90.5 degrees F and

increase the lower temperature of the

condition temperature range. In

addition, they change a surveillance

requirement to require verification that

the temperature is less than or equal to

90.5 degrees F.

Date of issuance: April 20, 2001.

Effective date: April 20, 2001.

Amendment Nos.: 213 and 240.

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

71 and DPR–62: Amendments change

the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: May 17, 2000 (65 FR 31356),

superseded on March 21, 2001 (66 FR

15916). The November 6, 2000,

supplement contained additional

information that expanded the scope of

the initial application. Subsequently,

the supplemented application was

renoticed.

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 20, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Consumers Energy Company, Docket

No. 50–255, Palisades Plant, Van Buren

County, Michigan

Date of application for amendment:

December 7, 2000.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment changes the Technical

Specifications regarding the Limiting

Conditions for Operation for the

containment cooling systems, the

component cooling water system, and

the service water system to be similar to

changes to the ‘‘Standard Technical

Specifications, Combustion Engineering

Plants,’’ NUREG–1432, Revision 1,

made by the Nuclear Energy Institute

Technical Specifications Task Force

Change Number 325, ‘‘ECCS Conditions

and Required Actions with < 100%

Equivalent ECCS Flow.’’

Date of issuance: May 3, 2001.

Effective date: As of the date of

issuance and shall be implemented

within 90 days.

Amendment No.: 199.

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

20. Amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: January 24, 2001 (66 FR

7677).

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated May 3, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Consumers Energy Company, Docket

No. 50–255, Palisades Plant, Van Buren

County, Michigan

Date of application for amendment:

December 7, 2000.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment changes Technical

27180 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices

Specification (TS) 3.7.5 regarding the

Limiting Conditions for Operation

(LCOs) for the auxiliary feedwater

system to be similar to changes to the

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications,

Combustion Engineering Plants,’’

NUREG 1432, Revision 1, made by the

Nuclear Energy Institute Technical

Specifications Task Force Change

Number 325, Revision 0.

Date of issuance: May 3, 2001.

Effective date: As of the date of

issuance and shall be implemented

within 90 days.

Amendment No.: 200.

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

20. Amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: January 24, 2001 (66 FR

7674).

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated May 3, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,

Columbia Generating Station (formerly

known as WNP–2), Benton County,

Washington

Date of application for amendment:

September 5, 2000, as supplemented

December 14, 2000.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment revised Technical

Specification (TS) Tables 3.3.5.1–1,

3.3.6.1–1 and 3.3.6.2–1. The changes

add notes to the tables listing

instrument channels that are common

to, or support the operability of

interrelated systems as governed by

these technical specifications.

Specifically:

(1) Added note ‘‘(e)’’ to Table 3.3.5.1–

1, ‘‘Emergency Core Cooling System

Instrumentation,’’ Functions 1c, 1d, 2c

and 2d in the column entitled

‘‘Required Channels Per Function,’’

indicating the applicability of the new

footnote which reads as follows: ‘‘(e)

Also supports OPERABILITY of 230 kV

offsite power circuit pursuant to LCO

3.8.1 and LCO 3.8.2.’’

(2) Added note ‘‘(e)’’ to Table 3.3.6.1–

1, ‘‘Primary Containment Isolation

Instrumentation,’’ in Functions 2b and

2c, in the column entitled ‘‘Required

Channels Per Trip System,’’ indicating

the applicability of the new footnote

which reads as follows: ‘‘(e) Also

required to initiate the associated LOCA

Time Delay Function pursuant to LCO

3.3.5.1.’’

(3) Added note ‘‘(c)’’ to Table 3.3.6.2–

1, ‘‘Secondary Containment Isolation

Instrumentation,’’ in Functions 1 and 2,

in the column entitled ‘‘Required

Channels Per Trip System,’’ indicating

the applicability of the new footnote

which reads as follows: ‘‘(c) Also

required to initiate the associated LOCA

Time Delay Function pursuant to LCO

3.3.5.1.’’

Date of issuance: April 30, 2001.

Effective date: April 30, 2001, to be

implemented within 30 days of the date

of issuance.

Amendment No.: 172.

Facility Operating License No. NPF–

21: The amendment revised the

Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: November 15, 2000 (65 FR

69059).

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 30, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

Docket No. 50–286, Indian Point

Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3,

Westchester County, New York

Date of application for amendment:

September 7, 2000, as supplemented on

April 2, 2001.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment revises Technical

Specification 3.7.3 to reflect planned

modifications to the main feedwater

system.

Date of issuance: April 18, 2001.

Effective date: April 18, 2001.

Amendment No.: 207.

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

64: Amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: November 15, 2000 (65 FR

69062).

The April 2, 2001, submittal

contained clarifying information only,

and did not change the initial no

significant hazards consideration

determination.

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 18, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick

Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County,

New York

Date of application for amendment:

August 16, 2000.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment (1) removes the ‘‘Offgas

Treatment System Explosive Gas Mixing

Instrumentation’’ Technical

Specification (TS) 3.7 from the

Radiological Effluent Technical

Specifications contained in Appendix B

and adds a reference to the Offgas

Treatment System Explosive Gas

Monitoring Program to Administrative

Section 6 of the TSs contained in

Appendix A; (2) replaces the position

title of Radiological and Environmental

Services Manager contained in the

Administrative Section 6 of Appendix A

with Radiation Protection Manager; and

(3) revises Plant Staff organization

requirements contained in

Administrative Section 6 to require

either the Operations Manager or the

Assistant Operations Manager to hold a

Senior Reactor Operator license.

Date of issuance: April 18, 2001.

Effective date: As of the date of

issuance to be implemented within 30

days.

Amendment No.: 270.

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

59: Amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: September 20, 2000 (65 FR

56956).

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 18, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy

Resources, Inc., South Mississippi

Electric Power Association, and Entergy

Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416,

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1,

Claiborne County, Mississippi

Date of application for amendment:

November 10, 2000, as supplemented by

letters dated February 15 and March 22,

2001.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment changes the safety limit

minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR)

for Cycle 12 operation with a mixed

core of Siemens Power Corporation

(now known as Framatome ANP

Richland, Inc.) ATRIUM–10 reload fuel,

and General Electric GE11 reactor fuel.

The amendment reflects a decrease of

the two recirculation loop SLMCPR

from 1.09 to 1.08, with the single

recirculation loop SLMCPR remaining

unchanged at 1.10. The amendment also

revises Technical Specification 5.6.5 to

update the list of references that are

currently used to determine core

operating limits.

Date of issuance: April 26, 2001.

Effective date: As of the date of

issuance and shall be implemented

within 30 days of the date of issuance.

Amendment No: 146.

Facility Operating License No. NPF–

29: The amendment revises the

Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: December 27, 2000 (65 FR

81917).

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendment is contained in a

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices 27181

Safety Evaluation dated April 26, 2001.

The February 15 and March 22, 2001,

supplements did not change the scope

of the amendment or the original

proposed no significant hazards

consideration determination.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC,

Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50–

455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,

Ogle County, Illinois

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50–

457, Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and

2, Will County, Illinois

Date of application for amendments:

October 24, 2000, as supplemented on

March 26, 2001.

Brief description of amendments: The

amendments revise the technical

specifications to reference the

generically approved Westinghouse

Best-Estimate large break loss of coolant

accident methodology for the plants.

Date of issuance: April 18, 2001.

Effective date: April 18, 2001.

Amendment Nos.: 118, 118, 112 and

112

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

37, NPF–66, NPF–72 and NPF–77: The

amendments revise the Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: February 21, 2001 (66 FR

11052).

The March 26, 2001, letter provided

clarifying information that did not

change the scope of October 24, 2000,

application or the initial no significant

hazards consideration determination.

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 18, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC,

Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50–

455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,

Ogle County, Illinois

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50–

457, Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and

2, Will County, Illinois

Date of application for amendments:

July 5, 2000, as supplemented by letters

dated November 27, 2000, December 21,

2000, January 31, 2001, February 20,

2001, February 28, 2001, March 26,

2001, April 5, 2001, and April 16, 2001.

Brief description of amendments: The

amendments revise the licenses and

technical specifications to reflect

approval of an increase in maximum

thermal power from 3411 megawattsthermal (MWt) to 3586.6 MWt.

Date of issuance: May 4, 2001.

Effective date: May 4, 2001.

Amendment Nos.: 119, 119, 113 and

113.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

37, NPF–66, NPF–72 and NPF–77: The

amendments revised the License and

the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: December 13, 2000.

The supplements to the application

provided clarifying information that did

not change the scope of the July 5, 2000,

application or the initial no significant

hazards consideration determination.

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated May 4, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Florida Power and Light Company, et

al., Docket No. 50–389, St. Lucie Plant,

Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

Date of application for amendment:

November 17, 1999, as supplemented

June 14, November 13, and December 4,

2000, and February 21, 2001.

Brief description of amendment:

Increased the allowed outage time to

restore an inoperable Emergency Diesel

Generator to operable status from 72

hours to 14 days.

Date of Issuance: April 26, 2001.

Effective Date: Date of issuance, to be

implemented within 60 days.

Amendment No.: 115.

Facility Operating License No. NPF–

16: Amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: December 15, 1999 (64 FR

70089). The June 14, November 13, and

December 4, 2000, and February 21,

2001, supplements did not affect the

original proposed no significant hazards

determination, or expand the scope of

the request as noticed in the Federal

Register.

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 26, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Florida Power and Light Company,

Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey

Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Dade County,

Florida

Date of application for amendments:

October 30, 2000, as supplemented

February 28, 2001.

Brief description of amendments: The

amendments revised Technical

Specification 5.3.2 for Turkey Point

Units 3 and 4 to extend the residual heat

removal (RHR) pump allowed outage

time (AOT) from 72 hours to 7 days to

restore an inoperable RHR pump to

operable status.

Date of issuance: April 25, 2001.

Effective date: Effective as of date of

issuance, to be implemented within 60

days.

Amendment Nos. 212 and 206.

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

31 and DPR–41: Amendments revised

the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: December 27, 2000 (65 FR

81922). The February 28, 2001,

supplemental letter provided clarifying

information which did not change the

proposed no significant hazards

consideration determination or expand

the scope of the request as noticed.

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 25, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Florida Power and Light Company,

Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey

Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Dade County,

Florida

Date of application for amendments:

December 6, 2000.

Brief description of amendments:

These amendments revised Technical

Specification Surveillance Requirement

4.6.1.3.c to extend the interval for

testing the containment air lock

interlock mechanisms from 6 months to

24 months. Additionally, the

amendments corrected an unrelated

administrative error in TS Table 3.3–2,

‘‘Engineered Safety Features Actuation

System Instrumentation.’’

Date of issuance: April 26, 2001.

Effective date: April 26, 2001.

Amendment Nos. 213 and 207.

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

31 and DPR–41: Amendments revised

the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: February 7, 2001 (66 FR

9385).

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 26, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Nuclear Management Company, LLC,

Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold

Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

Date of application for amendment:

October 16, 2000, as supplemented

December 22, 2000.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment revises the TSs to

incorporate new pressure and

temperature (P-T) limit curves. The

reactor pressure vessel P-T limit curves

are updated for inservice leakage and

hydrostatic testing, non-nuclear heatup

and cooldown, and criticality. The

revised P-T limit curves are approved

for an interim period not to exceed

September 1, 2003.

27182 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices

Date of issuance: April 30, 2001.

Effective date: As of the date of

issuance and shall be implemented

within 30 days.

Amendment No.: 238.

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

49: The amendment revised the

Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: December 13, 2000 (65 FR

77921).

The December 22, 2000, letter was

within the scope of the original Federal

Register notice and did not change the

staff’s initial proposed no significant

hazards consideration determination.

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 30, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company,

Docket No. 50–323, Diablo Canyon

Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2, San

Luis Obispo County, California

Date of application for amendment:

June 2, 2000, as supplemented by letters

dated December 15, 2000, and February

14, 2001.

Brief description of amendments: The

amendment revised Technical

Specification (TS) Section 3.5.2,

‘‘ECCS—Operating,’’ Action A to allow

a one-time increase in the allowed

outage time for centrifugal charging

pump (CCP) 2–1 during Unit 2’s Cycle

10 from 72 hours to 7 days. This change

will allow for a potential on-line repair

or a potential replacement of CCP 2–1.

This pump is currently experiencing

elevated vibration levels due to a

structural resonance in the outboard

bearing support structure and has been

on an increased testing frequency since

May 1996 due to high vibration.

Date of issuance: April 20, 2001.

Effective date: April 20, 2001, and

shall be implemented within 30 days

from the date of issuance.

Amendment No.: 146.

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

82: The amendment revised the

Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: July 12, 2000 (65 FR 43051).

The December 15, 2000, and February

14, 2001, supplemental letters provided

additional clarifying information, did

not expand the scope of the application

as originally noticed, and did not

change the staff’s original proposed no

significant hazards consideration

determination.

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 20, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company,

Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP),

Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo

County, California

Date of application for amendments:

November 30, 2000.

Brief description of amendments: The

license amendments revised Technical

Specifications (TS) Section TS 3.5.1,

‘‘Accumulators’’ to (1) reflect the values

of the accumulator pressure and volume

consistent with the analyses

assumptions documented in the current

DCPP Final Safety Analysis Report

(FSAR) Update, and (2) align the DCPP

TS with the standard TS for

Westinghouse plants.

Date of issuance: May 3, 2001.

Effective date: May 3, 2001, and shall

be implemented within 30 days from

the date of issuance.

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–147; Unit

2–147.

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

80 and DPR–82: The amendments

revised the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: December 27, 2000 (65 FR

81928).

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated May 3, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

Inc., Georgia Power Company,

Oglethorpe Power Corporation,

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,

City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket No. 50–

366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit

2, Appling County, Georgia

Date of application for amendment:

March 9, 2001.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment revises the Technical

Specifications only until the Fall 2001

refueling outage and allows Mode 2

(startup) operation with two required

intermediate range monitor channels

per trip system.

Date of issuance: April 27, 2001.

Effective date: As of the date of

issuance and shall be implemented

within 30 days from the date of

issuance.

Amendment No.: 166.

Facility Operating License No. NPF–5:

Amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: March 20, 2001 (66 FR

15768).

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 27, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

STP Nuclear Operating Company,

Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South

Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda

County, Texas

Date of amendment request: March

17, 2000.

Brief description of amendments: The

amendments revise Technical

Specification (TS) 3/4.7.4, ‘‘Essential

Cooling Water System,’’ to delete

Surveillance Requirement 4.7.b.3, and

to change Surveillance Requirements

4.7.4.b.1 and 4.7.4.b.2 to incorporate the

wording from the Standard Technical

Specifications for Westinghouse Plants

(NUREG–1431). Surveillance

Requirement 4.7.4.b.3 requires verifying

at least once per 18 months that each

screen wash booster pump and the

traveling screen start automatically on a

Safety Injection test signal. The Bases

for TS 3/4.7.4 were also changed.

Date of issuance: April 30, 2001.

Effective date: The amendments are

effective as of the date of their issuance.

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—126; Unit

2—115.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

76 and NPF–80: The amendments

revised the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: April 19, 2000 (65 FR 21039).

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 30, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

STP Nuclear Operating Company,

Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South

Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda

County, Texas

Date of amendment request:

November 18, 1999, as supplemented by

letters dated November 29, 1999, and

November 22, 2000.

Brief description of amendments:

Changes to Technical Specifications

surveillance testing to satisfy the actions

requested in Generic Letter 99–02. The

November 29, 1999, and November 22,

2000, letters provided additional

clarifying information that was within

the scope of the original application and

Federal Register notice and did not

change the NRC staff’s initial proposed

no significant hazards consideration

determination.

Date of issuance: May 1, 2001.

Effective date: As of the date of

issuance and shall be implemented

within 30 days from the date of

issuance.

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—127; Unit

2—116.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

76 and NPF–80: The amendments

revised the Technical Specifications.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices 27183

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: December 29, 1999 (64 FR

73099).

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated May 1, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

TXU Electric, Docket Nos. 50–445 and

50–446, Comanche Peak Steam Electric

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell

County, Texas

Date of amendment request: May 17,

2000, as supplemented by letters dated

August 31, 2000, and January 31, 2001.

Brief description of amendments: The

amendments revise the Allowable

Values specified in Technical

Specification (TS) Table 3.3.5–1, ‘‘Loss

of Power (LOP) Diesel Generator (DG)

Start Instrumentation’’ to ensure that the

6.9 kiloVolt and 480 Volt undervoltage

relays initiate the necessary actions

when required. In addition, a change is

made to Condition D of TS 3.3.5, ‘‘Loss

of Power (LOP) Diesel Generator (DG)

Start Instrumentation,’’ to eliminate the

term ‘‘undervoltage.’’ This change is

consistent with a change to TS Table

3.3.5–1.

Date of issuance: April 20, 2001.

Effective date: As of the date of

issuance and shall be implemented

within 30 days from the date of

issuance.

Amendment Nos.: 85 and 85.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

87 and NPF–89: The amendments

revised the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: March 21, 2001 (66 FR

15930).

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 20, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Corporation, Docket No. 50–271,

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station,

Vernon, Vermont

Date of application for amendment:

November 30, 2000, as supplemented by

letters dated March 8 and 12, 2001.

Brief description of amendment: The

changes revise the operability

requirements for the refueling interlocks

contained within TS 3.12.A as well as

the surveillance requirements specified

within 4.12.A. Clarifying changes are

made to TS 3.12.D and 3.12.E to

indicate that only the required

interlocks need to be operable. In

addition, TS 3.12.F will be clarified to

articulate that there must be a minimum

of 24 hours fission product decay prior

to fuel handling. Some editorial changes

were made in TS 3.12.B.

Date of Issuance: April 20, 2001.

Effective date: As of the date of

issuance, and shall be implemented

within 30 days.

Amendment No.: 200.

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

28: Amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: March 20, 2001 (66 FR

15770).

The Commission’s related evaluation

of this amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 20, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Corporation, Docket No. 50–271,

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station,

Vernon, Vermont

Date of application for amendment:

November 27, 2000.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment eliminates the

specifications associated with the 24

Vdc Emergency Core Cooling System

(ECCS) instrumentation batteries and

chargers. The 24 Vdc ECCS

instrumentation loads will be

transferred to the 125 Vdc main station

batteries.

Date of Issuance: April 20, 2001.

Effective date: As of the date of

issuance, and shall be implemented

within 60 days.

Amendment No.: 201.

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

28: Amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: January 10, 2001 (66 FR

2024).

The Commission’s related evaluation

of this amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 20, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Corporation, Docket No. 50–271,

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station,

Vernon, Vermont

Date of application for amendment:

November 1, 2000.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment revises the operability

requirement for high pressure coolant

injection (HPCI) and reactor core

isolation cooling low steam line

pressure isolation instrumentation to

coincide with system operability

requirements. The proposed change

eliminates the need to open manual

containment isolation valves under

administrative control during reactor

heatup, reduces the potential for

operator error when closing these valves

(potential for leaving valve

mispositioned), and clarifies the steam

line low pressure isolation function

description. An administrative change

to correct the HPCI High Steam Line d/

p instrument component numbers was

also made to ensure the accuracy of

isolation instrumentation information.

Date of Issuance: April 20, 2001.

Effective date: As of the date of

issuance, and shall be implemented

within 60 days.

Amendment No.: 202.

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

28: Amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: December 13, 2000 (65 FR

77928)

The Commission’s related evaluation

of this amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated April 20, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Corporation, Docket No. 50–271,

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station,

Vernon, Vermont

Date of application for amendment:

December 19, 2000 as supplemented on

February 13 and 23, 2001, and March

29, 2001.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment revises the Technical

Specifications (TSs) by changing the

reactor vessel pressure/temperature

limit curves specified in TS 3.6.A.1,

‘‘Reactor Coolant Systems—Pressure

and Temperature Limitations,’’ as

graphically represented in Figures 3.6.1,

Hydrostatic Pressure and Leak Tests,

Core Not Critical, Figure 3.6.2, Normal

Operation, Core Not Critical, and 3.6.3,

Normal Operation/Core Critical.

Date of Issuance: May 4, 2001.

Effective date: As of the date of

issuance, and shall be implemented

within 60 days.

Amendment No.: 203.

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

28: Amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: January 24, 2001 (66 FR

7687).

The February 13 and 23, and March

29, 2001, supplements provided

clarifying information that did not

expand the scope of the application as

published in the Federal Register, or

change the proposed no significant

consideration determination.

The Commission’s related evaluation

of this amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated May 4, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

27184 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices

1 15 U.S.C. 78k–1(a)(3)(B).

2 17 CFR 240.11Aa3–2.

3See Plan for the Purpose of Developing and

Implementing Procedures Designed to Facilitate the

Listing and Trading of Standardized Options

Submitted Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3)(B) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, dated January 11,

2001. The OLPP is available at the Commission’s

Public Reference Room.

4Letter dated March 2, 2001, from Claire P.

McGrath, Vice President and Special Counsel,

Amex, to Elizabeth King, Associate Director,

Division of Market Regulation (‘‘Division’’),

Commission (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). Amendment

No. 1 provided information required by Rule

11Aa3–2(b)(4) under the Act, 17 CFR 240.11Aa3–

2(b)(4), regarding implementation of the proposed

OLPP, the proposed OLPP’s impact on competition,

and written agreements or understandings among

the Sponsors of the plan.

5Letter dated May 4, 2001, from Clair P. McGrath,

Vice President and Special Counsel, Amex, to

Elizabeth King, Associate Director, Division,

Commission (‘‘Amendment No. 2’’). Amendment

No. 2 would add procedures for new eligible

exchanges to become Sponsors of the Plan and a

provision for Sponsors that are no longer eligible to

participate in the Plan.

6 17 CFR 240.11Aa3–2(c)(1).

7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 29698

(September 17, 1991), 56 FR 48954 (September 25,

1991). The JEOP provides specific procedures

governing the selecting, listing, challenging, and

arbitrating the eligibility of new equity options

overlying both exchange-traded an over-the-counter

listed securities.

8The NYSE later sold its options business to the

CBOE. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.

38542 (April 23, 1997), 62 FR 23521 (April 30,

1997).

9The parties filed, and the Commission approved

the JEOP as identical proposed rule changes. The

OLPP would not replace these rules. The parties

would have to file proposed rule changes to amend

their rules.

10 15 U.S.C. 78s(h)(1).

11See Order Instituting Public Administrative

Proceeding Pursuant to Section 19(h)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings

and Imposing Remedial Sanctions. Securities

Exchange Act Release No. 43268 (September 11,

2000) (‘‘Settlement Order’’). The Settlement Order

states that the respondent exchanges have

Virginia Electric and Power Company,

Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North

Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2,

Louisa County, Virginia

Date of application for amendment:

June 22, 2000, as supplemented

September 19, 2000, and January 4,

February 14, March 13, March 22, and

April 11, 2001.

Brief description of amendment:

These amendments revise Technical

Specification (TS) Figures 3.4–2 and

3.4–3, and the associated Bases. These

amendments approve new pressuretemperature limits, low-temperature

overpressure protection (LTOP) system

setpoints, and LTOP system effective

temperature (Tenable) in the TS to a

maximum of 32.3 effective full-power

years (EFPY) for Unit 1 and 34.3 EFPY

for Unit 2. These changes were based, in

part, on the use of the American Society

of Mechanical Engineers Code Case N–

641.

Date of issuance: May 2, 2001.

Effective date: As of the date of

issuance, to be implemented within 30

days.

Amendment Nos.: 226 and 207.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

4 and NPF–7: Amendments change the

TS.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: February 23, 2001 (66 FR

11334). The January 4, 2001, submittal

expanded the scope of the original June

22, 2000, application, which was

noticed at 65 FR 48760. The February

14, March 13, March 22, and April 11,

2001, supplements contained clarifying

information only, and did not change

the February 23, 2001, initial no

significant hazards consideration

determination or expand the scope of

the Federal Register notice.

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated May 2, 2001.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 8th day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John A. Zwolinski,

Director, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–12192 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF

GOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meeting; Board Votes To

Close May 15, 2001, Meeting

At its meeting on May 7, 2001, the

Board of Governors of the United States

Postal Service voted unanimously to

close to public observation its meeting

scheduled for May 15, 2001, in

Washington, DC, in person and via

teleconference.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Legal Update.

2. Strategic Planning.

3. Personnel Matters.

4. Compensation issues.

PERSONS EXPECTED TO ATTEND:

Governors Ballard, Daniels, del Junco,

Dyhrkopp, Fineman, Kessler,

McWherter, Rider and Walsh;

Postmaster General Henderson, Deputy

Postmaster General Nolan, Secretary to

the Board Hunter, and General Counsel

Gibbons.

GENERAL COUNSEL CERTIFICATION: The

General Counsel of the United States

Postal Service has certified that the

meeting was properly closed under the

Government in the Sunshine Act.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Requests for information about the

meeting should be addressed to the

Secretary of the Board, David G. Hunter,

at (202) 268–4800.

David G. Hunter,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–12477 Filed 5–14–01; 2:06 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–44287; File No. 4–443]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filings of

a Proposed Options Listing

Procedures Plan by the American

Stock Exchange LLC, Chicago Board

Options Exchange, Incorporated,

International Securities Exchange LLS,

The Options Clearing Corporation,

Pacific Exchange, Inc., and

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.

May 10, 2001.

I. Introduction

On January 11, 2001, pursuant to

Section 11A(a)(3)(B) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule

11Aa3–2 thereunder,2 The American

Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’), Chicago

Board Options Exchange, Incorporated

(‘‘CBOE’’), International Securities

Exchange LLC (‘‘ISE’’), The Options

Clearing Corporation (‘‘OCC’’), Pacific

Exchange, Inc., (‘‘PCX’’), and

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.

(‘‘Phlx’’) (collectively, the ‘‘Sponsors’’)

filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) a

proposed options listing procedures

plan (‘‘OLPP’’ or ‘‘Plan’’).3 The Sponsors

filed amendments to the proposed Plan

on March 3, 2001 4 and May 9, 2001.5

Pursuant to Rule 11Aa3–2(c)(1) under

the Act,6 the Commission is publishing

notice of, and soliciting comments on

the proposed Plan, as amended.

II. Background

On September 17, 1991, the

Commission approved the JointExchange Options Plan (‘‘JEOP’’), which

sets forth procedures governing the

listing of new options.7 The Amex,

CBOE, PCX, Phlx, and New York Stock

Exchange 8 were parties to the JEOP.9

On September 11, 2000, the

Commission instituted public

administrative proceedings pursuant to

Section 19(h)(1) of the Act 10 against,

and simultaneously accepted offer of

settlement from the Amex, CBOE, PCX,

and Phlx (collectively, the ‘‘respondent

exchanges’’).11 Under the Settlement