Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices 33581

Library Component on the NRC Web

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

Reading Room). In addition, the revised

LTP may be accessed on the MYAPC

web site, www.maineyankee.com.

Comments regarding the MYAPS LTP

may be submitted in writing and

addressed to Mr. Michael Webb, Mail

Stop O–7 D1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555–

0001, telephone (301) 415–1347 or email mkw@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day

of June 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert A. Gramm,

Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate IV,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–15709 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301]

Nuclear Manaagement Company, LLC;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

24 and DPR–27, issued to Nuclear

Management Company, LLC (NMC or

the licensee), for operation of the Point

Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,

located in Manitowoc County,

Wisconsin.

The proposed amendment would be a

full conversion from the current

Technical Specifications (CTS) to a set

of improved Technical Specifications

(ITS) based on NUREG–1431, ‘‘Standard

Technical Specifications (STS) for

Westinghouse Plants,’’ Revision 1, dated

April 1995. The STS have been

developed by the Commission’s staff

through working groups composed of

both NRC staff members and industry

representatives, and has been endorsed

by the staff as part of an industry-wide

initiative to standardize and improve

the Technical Specifications (TSs) for

nuclear power plants. As part of the

proposed amendment, the licensee has

applied the criteria contained in the

Commission’s ‘‘Final Policy Statement

on Technical Specification

Improvements for Nuclear Power

Reactors (Final Policy Statement),’’

published in the Federal Register on

July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), to the CTS,

and, using NUREG–1431 as a basis,

proposed ITS for Point Beach, Units 1

and 2. The criteria in the Final Policy

Statement were subsequently added to

10 CFR 50.36, ‘‘Technical

Specifications,’’ in a rule change that

was published in the Federal Register

on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 36953). The rule

change became effective on August 18,

1995.

The licensee has categorized the

proposed changes to the CTS into four

general groupings. These groupings are

characterized as administrative changes,

relocation changes, more restrictive

changes, and less restrictive changes.

Administrative changes are those that

involve restructuring, renumbering,

rewording, interpretation, and complex

rearranging of requirements, and other

changes not affecting technical content

or substantially revising an operating

requirement. The reformatting,

renumbering, and rewording processes

reflect the attributes of NUREG–1431

and does not involve technical changes

to the existing TSs. The proposed

changes include: (a) Identifying plantspecific wording for system names, etc.,

(b) changing the wording of

specification titles in the CTS to

conform to STS, (c) splitting up

requirements that are currently grouped,

or combining requirements that are

currently in separate specifications, (d)

deleting specifications whose

applicability has expired, and (e)

wording changes that are consistent

with the CTS but that more clearly or

explicitly state existing requirements.

Such changes are administrative in

nature and do not impact initiators of

analyzed events or assumed mitigation

of accident or transient events.

Relocation changes are those

involving relocation of requirements

and surveillances for structures,

systems, components, or variables that

do not meet the criteria for inclusion in

TSs. Relocated changes are those CTS

requirements that do not satisfy or fall

within any of the four criteria specified

in the Commission’s policy statement

and may be relocated to appropriate

licensee-controlled documents.

The licensee’s application of the

screening criteria to Point Beach, Units

1 and 2, is described in Attachment 6 to

the November 15, 1999, application.

The affected structures, systems,

components, or variables are not

assumed to be initiators of analyzed

events and are not assumed to mitigate

accident or transient events. The

requirements and surveillances for these

affected structures, systems,

components, or variables will be

relocated from the TSs to

administratively controlled documents

such as the quality assurance program,

the Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report (UFSAR), the ITS Bases, the

Technical Requirements Manual (TRM)

that is incorporated by reference in the

UFSAR, the Core Operating Limits

Report (COLR), the Offsite Dose

Calculation Manual, the Inservice

Testing Program, the Inservice

Inspection Program, or other licenseecontrolled documents. Changes made to

these documents will be made pursuant

to 10 CFR 50.59 or other appropriate

control mechanisms, and may be made

without prior NRC review and approval.

In addition, the affected structures,

systems, components, or variables are

addressed in existing surveillance

procedures that are also subject to 10

CFR 50.59. These proposed changes will

not impose or eliminate any

requirements.

More restrictive changes are those

involving more stringent requirements

compared to the CTS for operation of

the facility. These more stringent

requirements do not result in operation

that will alter assumptions relative to

the mitigation of an accident or

transient event. The more restrictive

requirements will not alter the operation

of process variables, structures, systems,

and components described in the safety

analyses.

Less restrictive changes are those

where CTS requirements are relaxed,

relocated or eliminated, or new plant

operational flexibility is provided.

When requirements have been shown to

provide little or no safety benefit, their

removal from the TSs may be

appropriate. In most cases, relaxations

previously granted to individual plants

on a plant-specific basis were the result

of (a) generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC

staff positions that have evolved from

the technological advancements and

operating experience, or (c) resolution of

the Owners Groups’ comments on the

ITS. Generic relaxations contained in

NUREG–1431 were reviewed by the staff

and found to be acceptable because they

are consistent with current licensing

practices and NRC regulations. The

licensee’s design will be reviewed to

determine if the specific design basis

and licensing basis are consistent with

the technical basis for the model

requirements in NUREG–1431, thus

providing a basis for these revised TSs,

or if relaxation of the requirements in

the CTS is warranted based on the

justification provided by the licensee.

These administrative, relocation,

more restrictive, and less restrictive

changes to the requirements of the CTS

do not result in operations that will alter

assumptions relative to mitigation of an

analyzed accident or transient event.

In addition to the proposed changes

solely involving the conversion, there

33582 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices

are also (1) changes proposed that are

differences to the requirements in both

the CTS and the STS and (2) changes

that are in addition to those changes

that are needed to meet the overall

purpose of the conversion. These

changes are referred to as beyond-scope

changes and are as follows:

1. Adopts more restrictive action

requirements for the emergency safety

feature actuation system (ESFAS). The

more restrictive action requirements

pertain to instrumentation channels for

the following functions: Steam line

isolation on manual, high steam flow,

and high high steam flow (ITS 3.3.2).

2. Adds an exception to Mode 3

applicability of the ESFAS instrument

function. The ITS is modified to allow

reactor coolant system hydrostatic

testing in Mode 3 without the steam line

pressure—low safety injection function

instrumentation being operable (ITS

3.3.2).

3. Adds a requirement for the

condensate isolation functions to be

operable in Modes 1, 2, and 3, except

when all main feedwater regulating

valves and associated bypass valves are

closed and deactivated (ITS 3.3.2).

4. Adopts STS requirements to

perform a trip actuating device

operational test on containment

isolation valve position indication postaccident monitoring instrumentation

function (ITS 3.3.3).

5. Increases action requirements for

loss of power diesel generator start and

load sequence instrumentation

functions. This item also imposes

additional restrictions by adopting the

STS-required actions for two inoperable

channels of 480 volt buses (ITS 3.3.5).

6. Relocates reactor coolant system

pressure temperature limits to the

pressure temperature limits report and

adopts STS required actions to ensure

operation within the pressure and

temperature limits (ITS 3.4.3 and ITS

5.6.5).

7. Increases operability and

surveillance requirements for reactor

coolant system (RCS) loops. For Mode 3,

the CTS currently requires one reactor

coolant pump to be in operation and

one steam generator to be operable. ITS

adds the requirement that two RCS

loops be operable, which also means

that two steam generators are required

in Mode 3. ITS also adopts a

surveillance to verify one RCS loop is in

operation consistent with the current

LCO (ITS 3.4.1).

8. Adds explicit operability, action,

and surveillance requirements for the

containment sump monitor (ITS 3.4.15).

9. Revises applicability and frequency

for surveillances of the auto actuation of

emergency core cooling system (ECCS)

valves and auto start of ECCS pumps in

Mode 4. ITS specifies an 18-month

frequency as opposed to the once each

refueling frequency in CTS. ITS also

requires the surveillance requirements

to be met during all Mode 4 conditions

(ITS 3.5.3).

10. Imposes more restrictive changes

to main steam isolation valve and nonreturn check valve action requirements.

The Point Beach plant has a different

arrangement for main steam isolation

valves and therefore, could not adopt

the STS requirements for these TSs (ITS

3.7.2).

11. Adds operability, action, and

surveillance TS requirements for main

feedwater isolation valves (ITS 3.7.3).

12. Imposes more restrictive changes

to the atmospheric dump valve flow

path action and surveillance

requirements (ITS 3.7.4).

13. Revises the frequency of

surveillance requirements for the

auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system. This

changes also revises some of the

nomenclature to the AFW system (ITS

3.7.5).

14. Incorporates changes to the

component cooling water system

operability and action requirements.

Also, adds a note to clarify action

requirements for when a residual heat

removal loop is made inoperable by

component cooling system components

(ITS 3.7.7).

15. Adds surveillance requirements to

verify the manual start and alignment

capabilities of the control room

emergency ventilation system (ITS

3.7.9).

16. Adds a limiting condition for

operability and an action pertaining to

a containment air temperature limit. In

addition, a Bases section is added to

provide background for the new TS

limit (ITS 3.6.5).

17. Adds a surveillance requirement

to verify that one residual heat removal

loop is in operation during Mode 6

conditions (ITS 3.9.5).

18. Relocates cycle-specific

parameters to a core operating limits

report (COLR) and establishes

administrative control requirements for

the COLR in ITS 5.6.4 (ITS 5.6.4).

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.

By July 23, 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, and is

accessible electronically through the

ADAMS Public Electronic Reading

Room link at the NRC Web site (http:/

/www.nrc.gov). 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 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

must specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

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 that may be entered

in the proceeding on the petitioner’s

interest. The petition must 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

that must include a list of the

contentions that the petitioner seeks to

have litigated in the hearing. 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices 33583

explanation of the bases of each

contention and a concise statement of

the alleged facts or expert opinion that

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.

The 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 that, if proven, would

entitle the petitioner to relief. A

petitioner who fails to file such a

supplement that 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.

A request for a hearing and petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the

above date. A copy of the request for a

hearing and the petition should also be

sent to the Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and to John H. O’Neill, Jr., Shaw,

Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037,

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

the factors specified in 10 CFR

2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated November 15, 1999,

as supplemented by letters dated March

15, June 15, June 19, July 28, August 17,

September 14, October 19, and

December 21, 2000, February 6,

February 23, March 19, May 11, and

June 13, 2001, 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.

Publicly available records will be

accessible electronically from the

Agencywide Documents Access and

Management Systems (ADAMS) Public

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet

at the NRC Web site, http://

www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.

If you do not have access to ADAMS or

if there are problems in accessing the

documents located in ADAMS, contact

the NRC Public Document Room

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–

415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day

of June 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Beth A. Wetzel,

Senior Project Manager, Section I, Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–15710 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–354]

PSEG Nuclear Limited Liability

Company; Hope Creek Generating

Station; Environmental Assessment

and Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of an amendment to Facility

Operating License (FOL) No. NPF–57,

issued to PSEG Nuclear LLC, (the

licensee), for operation of the Hope

Creek Generating Station (HCGS)

located in Lower Alloways Creek

Township, Salem County, New Jersey.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed

The proposed license amendment

would revise the FOL and Technical

Specifications (TSs) for the HCGS, to

allow the licensee to increase the

licensed core power level from 3,293

megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,339 MWt,

which represents a 1.4-percent increase

in the allowable thermal power. The

NRC authorized HCGS for full power

production at 3,293 MWt with issuance

of the FOL on July 25, 1986. In addition

to the power uprate, the proposed

license amendment would allow the

licensee to make editorial changes to the

TS Bases and Index sections.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

license amendment dated December 1,

2000, as supplemented by letters dated

February 12, May 7, and May 14, 2001.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow an

increase in power generation at HCGS to

provide additional electrical power for

distribution to the grid. In certain

circumstances, power uprate has been

recognized as a safe and cost-effective

method to increase generating capacity.

The proposed action would also allow

editorial changes to the TS Bases and

Index sections to provide corrections to

references and typographical errors.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action and concludes

that implementation of the proposed

amendment would not have a

significant impact on the environment.

With regard to potential radiological

impacts, the licensee has evaluated the

proposed 1.4-percent power uprate with

respect to its effect on the consequences

of postulated design-basis accidents and

on normal releases of liquid and gaseous

effluents. For postulated design-basis

accidents, the effects of the proposed

power uprate are bounded by current

licensing basis dose analyses. No

increase in the probability of these

accidents is expected to occur. For

liquid and gaseous effluents, the offsite

doses resulting from normal releases are

not impacted by the proposed power

uprate because the uprated power is less

than the core power level that was used

for the source term development in the

existing analyses. The release volumes

from the liquid and solid waste

processing systems are not expected to

change as a result of the proposed

power level change. The proposed

editorial changes to the TSs are

administrative in nature and would

have no radiological impact. The

proposed action will not significantly

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in occupational or

public radiation exposure. Based on the