Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 103 / Thursday, May 27, 2004 / Notices 30339

NUCLEAR REGULATORY is able to ensure consideration only for change for proposed adoption by COMMISSION comments received on or before this licensees. Those licensees opting to date. apply for the subject change to TSs are Notice of Opportunity To Comment on ADDRESSES: Comments may be responsible for reviewing the staff’s Model Safety Evaluation on Technical submitted either electronically or via evaluation, referencing the applicable Specification Improvement Regarding U.S. mail. technical justifications, and providing Revision to the Control Rod Scram Submit written comments to: Chief, any necessary plant-specific Time Testing Frequency in STS 3.1.4, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of information. Each amendment ‘‘Control Rod Scram Times’’ for Administrative Services, Office of application made in response to the General Electric Boiling Water Administration, Mail Stop: T–6 D59, notice of availability would be Reactors Using the Consolidated Line U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, processed and noticed in accordance Item Improvement Process Washington, DC 20555–0001. with applicable rules and NRC Hand deliver comments to: 11545 procedures. AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory NUREG–1433, SR 3.1.4.2 states, Commission. Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on ‘‘Verify, for a representative sample, ACTION: Request for comment. Federal workdays. each tested control rod scram time is within the limits of Table 3.1.4–1 with SUMMARY: Copies of comments received may be Notice is hereby given that reactor steam dome pressure ≥ [800] the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory examined at the NRC’s Public Document Room, One White Flint North, Public psig.’’ NUREG–1434, SR 3.1.4.2 states, Commission (NRC) has prepared a ‘‘Verify, for a representative sample, model safety evaluation (SE) relating to File Area O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. each tested control rod scram time is changing the testing frequency for the within the limits of Table 3.1.4–1 with surveillance requirement (SR) in Comments may be submitted by ≥ electronic mail to [email protected]. reactor steam dome pressure [950] Standard Technical Specifications (STS) psig.’’ Both SRs have a frequency of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 3.1.4, ‘‘Control Rod Scram Times.’’ The ‘‘120 days cumulative operation in Bhalchandra Vaidya, Mail Stop: O–7D1, proposed change revises the test MODE 1.’’ The proposed change revises frequency of SR 3.1.4.2, control rod Division of Licensing Project the frequency to ‘‘200 days cumulative scram time testing, from ‘‘120 days Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor operation in MODE 1.’’ The Bases are cumulative operation in MODE 1’’ to Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory revised to reference the new frequency ‘‘200 days cumulative operation in Commission, Washington, DC 20555– and to reduce the percentage of the MODE 1’’ via changes to the NUREG– 0001, telephone (301) 415–3308, or tested rods which can be ‘‘slow’’ from 1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG–1434 (BWR/ William Reckley at (301) 415–1323. 20 percent to 7.5 percent. 6). The Owners Group participants in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Industry operating experience has the Technical Specification Task Force Background shown the control rod scram times to be (TSTF) proposed this change to the STS highly reliable. For example, at the in the Improved Standard Technical Regulatory Issue Summary 2000–06, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, out of 7,660 Specifications Change Traveler TSTF– ‘‘Consolidated Line Item Improvement control rod insertion tests, only 12 460, Revision 0 1. This notice also Process for Adopting Standard control rods have been slower than the includes a model no significant hazards Technical Specification Changes for insertion time limit (with the exception consideration (NSHC) determination Power Reactors,’’ was issued on March of test data from an anomalous cycle). relating to this matter. 20, 2000. The Consolidated Line Item The control rod drive system has shown The purpose of these models is to Improvement Process (CLIIP) is to be highly reliable. This high permit the NRC to efficiently process intended to improve the efficiency and reliability supports the extension of the amendments to incorporate this change transparency of NRC licensing surveillance frequency from 120 days of into plant-specific Technical processes. This is accomplished by cumulative operation in Mode 1 to 200 Specifications (TSs) for General Electric processing proposed changes to the STS days. The current TS Bases states that (GE) boiling water reactors (BWRs). in a manner that supports subsequent the acceptance criteria have been met if Licensees of nuclear power reactors to license amendment applications. The 20 percent or fewer of the random which the models apply could request CLIIP includes an opportunity for the sample control rods that are tested amendments conforming to the models. public to comment on proposed changes within the 120-day surveillance period In such a request, a licensee should to the STS following a preliminary are found to be slow. The Bases are confirm the applicability of the SE and assessment by the NRC staff and a revised to change the control rod NSHC determination to its reactor. The finding that the change will likely be insertion time acceptance criterion for NRC staff is requesting comments on the offered for adoption by licensees. This percentage of slow rods allowed, model SE and model NSHC notice is soliciting comment on a reducing the value to 7.5 percent of the determination before announcing their proposed change to the SR in STS 3.1.4 random at-power surveillance sample availability for referencing in license ‘‘Control Rod Scram Times.’’ The when the surveillance period is amendment applications. proposed change revises the test extended to 200 cumulative days of DATES: The comment period expires frequency of SR 3.1.4.2, control rod operation in Mode 1. The more June 28, 2004. Comments received after scram time testing, from ‘‘120 days restrictive 7.5 percent acceptance this date will be considered if it is cumulative operation in MODE 1’’ to criterion for testing the random sample practical to do so, but the Commission ‘‘200 days cumulative operation in is consistent with the TS 3.1.4 objective MODE 1’’ via changes to the NUREG– of ensuring that no more than a small 1 In conjunction with the proposed change, 1433 and NUREG–1434 for the GE STS. percentage of control rods are slow at technical specifications (TS) requirements for a The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to any given time. bases control program, consistent with the TS Bases evaluate any comments received for a Control Program described in Section 5.5 of the Applicability applicable vendor’s standard TS, shall be proposed change to the STS and to incorporated into the licensee’s TS, if not already either reconsider the change or proceed This proposed change to revise the TS in the TS. with announcing the availability of the testing frequency for the SR 3.1.4.2 in

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:31 May 26, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM 27MYN1 30340 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 103 / Thursday, May 27, 2004 / Notices

STS 3.1.4 is applicable to GE BWR/4s (TSTF) Change TSTF–460, ‘‘Control Rod The proposed change does not affect and BWR/6s 2. Scram Time Testing Frequency.’’ any current operability requirements To efficiently process the incoming 1.0 Introduction and the test frequency being revised is license amendment applications, the not specified in regulations. As a result, staff requests each licensee applying for By application dated [Date], no regulatory requirements or criteria the changes addressed by TSTF–460 [Licensee] (the licensee) requested are affected. using the CLIIP to address the plant- changes to the Technical Specifications specific verifications identified in the (TSs) for [facility]. The proposed 3.0 Technical Evaluation changes would revise TS testing model SE. Namely, each licensee 3.1 Statement of Proposed Changes submitting amendments to extend the frequency for the surveillance surveillance frequency should requirement (SR) in TS 3.1.4, ‘‘Control NUREG–1433, SR 3.1.4.2 states, demonstrate the reliability of the control Rod Scram Times.’’ ‘‘Verify, for a representative sample, rod insertion system based on historical These changes are based on Technical each tested control rod scram time is Specifications Task Force (TSTF) control rod scram time test data, and by within the limits of Table 3.1.4–1 with change traveler TSTF–460 (Revision 0) the more restrictive acceptance criterion reactor steam dome pressure ≥[800] that has been approved generically for for the number of slow rods allowed the boiling water reactor (BWR) psig.’’ NUREG–1434, SR 3.1.4.2 states, during at-power surveillance testing. Standard TSs, NUREG–1433 (BWR/4) ‘‘Verify, for a representative sample, The CLIIP does not prevent licensees and NUREG–1434 (BWR/6) by revising each tested control rod scram time is from requesting an alternative approach within the limits of Table 3.1.4–1 with the frequency of SR 3.1.4.2, control rod ≥ or proposing the changes without the scram time testing, from ‘‘120 days reactor steam dome pressure [950] requested verifications. Variations from cumulative operation in MODE 1’’ to psig.’’ Both SRs have a frequency of the approach recommended in this ‘‘200 days cumulative operation in ‘‘120 days cumulative operation in notice may, however, require additional MODE 1.’’ A notice announcing the MODE 1.’’ The proposed change revises review by the NRC staff and may availability of this proposed TS change the frequency to ‘‘200 days cumulative increase the time and resources needed using the consolidated line item operation in MODE 1.’’ The Bases are for the review. improvement process was published in revised to reference the new frequency Public Notices the Federal Register on [DATE] (XX FR and to reduce the percentage of the XXXXXX). tested rods which can be ‘‘slow’’ from This notice requests comments from 20 percent to 7.5 percent. interested members of the public within 2.0 Regulatory Evaluation 30 days of the date of publication in the The TS governing the control rod 3.2 Evaluation of Proposed Change Federal Register. Following the staff’s scram time surveillance is intended to Over the course of the operating life evaluation of comments received as a assure proper function of control rod of [Plant Name], the control rod result of this notice, the staff may insertion. Following each refueling insertion time test results have shown reconsider the proposed change or may outage, all control rod scram times are the control rod scram rates to be highly proceed with announcing the verified. In addition, periodically during availability of the change in a power operation, a representative reliable. During [XXX] years of subsequent notice (perhaps with some sample of control rods is randomly operation, out of [XXX] control rod changes to the SE or proposed NSHC selected to be partially inserted to verify insertion tests, only [XXX] control rods determination as a result of public the insertion speed. A representative have been slower than the insertion comments). If the staff announces the sample is defined as a sample time limit. The extensive historical availability of the change, licensees containing at least 10 percent of the database substantiates the claim of high wishing to adopt the change will submit total number of control rods. The reliability of the [Plant Name] control an application in accordance with current TS stipulates that no more than rod drive system. The current TS applicable rules and other regulatory 20 percent of the control rods in this requires that 10 percent of the [XXX] requirements. The staff will in turn representative sample can be ‘‘slow’’ control rods, or [XXX] rods, be tested issue for each application a notice of during the post outage testing. With via random sampling every 120 consideration of issuance of amendment more than 20 percent of the sample cumulative days of operation in Mode 1. to facility operating license(s), a declared to be ‘‘slow’’ per the criteria in The current TS states that the proposed NSHC determination, and an Table 3.1.4–1, additional control rods acceptance criteria have been met if 20 opportunity for a hearing. A notice of are tested until this 20 percent criterion percent or fewer of the random sample issuance of an amendment to operating (e.g., 20 percent of the entire sample control rods that are tested are found to license(s) will also be issued to size) is satisfied, or until the total be slow. The acceptance criterion has announce the revised requirements for number of ‘‘slow’’ control rods been re-defined for at-power each plant that applies for and receives (throughout the core, from all surveillance testing from 20 percent to the requested change. surveillances) exceeds the Limiting 7.5 percent when the surveillance Proposed Safety Evaluation Condition for Operation limit. For period is extended to 200 cumulative planned testing, the control rods days of operation in Mode 1. This Nuclear Regulatory Commission, selected for the sample should be tightened acceptance criterion for at- Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, different for each test. The acceptance power surveillance aligns with the TS Consolidated Line Item Improvement, criterion for at-power surveillance 3.1.4 requirement for the total control Technical Specification Task Force testing has been redefined from 20 rods allowed to have scram times percent to 7.5 percent. This tightened exceeding the specified limit. 2 Although TSTF–460 includes 200 days in acceptance criterion for at-power brackets indicating a plant-specific value, proposed surveillance aligns with the TS 3.1.4 The licensee will incorporate the changes exceeding 200 days will require additional requirement for the total control rods revised acceptance criterion value of 7.5 review and may result in the proposed amendment percent into the TS Bases at the next being processed using routine review procedures allowed to have scram times exceeding instead of using the CLIIP. the specified limit. periodic update in accordance with

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:31 May 26, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM 27MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 103 / Thursday, May 27, 2004 / Notices 30341

their Bases Control Program and as a compliance with the Commission’s time testing from every 120 days of condition of this license amendment.3 regulations, and (3) the issuance of the cumulative Mode 1 operation to 200 The NRC staff considers the extended amendment will not be inimical to the days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. surveillance interval to be justified by common defense and security or to the The proposed change continues to test the demonstrated reliability of the health and safety of the public. the control rod scram time to ensure the control rod insertion system, based on assumptions in the safety analysis are Proposed No Significant Hazards historical control rod scram time test protected. Therefore, the proposed Consideration Determination data, and by the more restrictive change does not involve a significant acceptance criterion for the number of Description of Amendment Request: reduction in a margin of safety. slow rods allowed during at-power The proposed amendment changes the Based on the above, the proposed surveillance testing. The NRC staff finds Technical Specification (TS) testing change presents no significant hazards the proposed TS change acceptable. frequency for the surveillance consideration under the standards set requirement (SR) in TS 3.1.4, ‘‘Control 4.0 State Consultation forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and Rod Scram Times’’. The proposed accordingly, a finding of ‘‘no significant In accordance with the Commission’s change revises the test frequency of SR hazards consideration’’ is justified. regulations, the [State] State official was 3.1.4.2, control rod scram time testing, notified of the proposed issuance of the Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 20th from ‘‘120 days cumulative operation in day of May, 2004. amendments. The State official had MODE 1’’ to ‘‘200 days cumulative For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. [choose one: (1) no comments, or (2) the operation in Mode 1.’’ following comments—with subsequent Basis for proposed no significant Robert A. Gramm, disposition by the staff]. hazards consideration determination: Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, 5.0 Environmental Consideration As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The amendment changes a hazards consideration is presented [FR Doc. 04–11992 Filed 5–26–04; 8:45 am] requirement with respect to the below: BILLING CODE 7590–01–P installation or use of a facility 1. Does the change involve a component located within the restricted significant increase in the probability or area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and consequences of an accident previously OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND changes surveillance requirements. The evaluated? BUDGET NRC staff has determined that the Response: No. amendments involve no significant The proposed change extends the Public Availability of Fiscal Year (FY) increase in the amounts and no frequency for testing control rod scram 2003 Agency Inventories Under the significant change in the types of any time testing from every 120 days of Federal Activities Inventory Reform effluents that may be released offsite, cumulative Mode 1 operation to 200 Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–270) and that there is no significant increase days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. (‘‘FAIR Act’’) in individual or cumulative The frequency of surveillance testing is occupational radiation exposure. The not an initiator of any accident AGENCY: Office of Management and Commission has previously issued a previously evaluated. The frequency of Budget; Executive Office of the proposed finding that the amendments surveillance testing does not affect the President. involve no significant hazards ability to mitigate any accident ACTION: Notice of public availability of consideration, and there has been no previously evaluated, as the tested agency inventory of activities that are public comment on such finding (XX FR component is still required to be not inherently governmental and of XXXXX). Accordingly, the amendment operable. Therefore, the proposed activities that are inherently meets the eligibility criteria for change does not involve a significant governmental. categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR increase in the probability or 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) consequences of an accident previously SUMMARY: In accordance with the FAIR no environmental impact statement or evaluated. Act, agency inventories of activities that environmental assessment need be 2. Does the change create the are not inherently governmental are prepared in connection with the possibility of a new or different kind of now available to the public from the issuance of the amendment. accident from any accident previously agencies listed below for FY 2003. The FAIR Act requires that OMB publish 6.0 Conclusion evaluated? Response: No. each fiscal year an announcement of The Commission has concluded, The proposed change extends the public availability of agency inventories based on the considerations discussed frequency for testing control rod scram of activities that are not inherently above, that: (1) There is reasonable time testing from every 120 days of governmental. After review and assurance that the health and safety of cumulative Mode 1 operation to 200 consultation with OMB, agencies are the public will not be endangered by the days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. required to make their inventories operation in the proposed manner, (2) The proposed change does not result in available to the public. Agencies have such activities will be conducted in any new or different modes of plant also included activities that are operation. Therefore, the proposed inherently governmental. This is the 3 Conditioning of the license amendment is change does not create the possibility of third release of the FAIR Act inventories accomplished by including wording similar to the for FY 2003. Interested parties who following in the implementation language (typically a new or different kind of accident from included as item 3) in the Amendment of Facility any previously evaluated. disagree with the agency’s initial Operating License: 3. Does the proposed change involve judgment can challenge the inclusion or This license amendment is effective as of its date a significant reduction in a margin of the omission of an activity on the list of of issuance and shall be implemented within [XX] safety? activities that are not inherently days from the date of issuance. The licensee shall incorporate during the next periodic update into the Response: No. governmental and, if not satisfied with TS Bases Section the changes described in its The proposed change extends the this review, may demand a higher application dated [Date]. frequency for testing control rod scram agency review/appeal.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:31 May 26, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM 27MYN1