[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 160 (Thursday, August 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51487-51494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-18512]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

I. Background

    Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. 
The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments 
issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the 
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an 
operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such 
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from July 23, 2004, through August 5, 2004. The 
last biweekly notice was published on August 3, 2004 (69 FR 46582).

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, 
and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this 
notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and 
any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who 
wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written 
request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of 
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to 
Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of 
written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The 
filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene 
is discussed below.

[[Page 51488]]

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a 
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic 
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should 
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition 
for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a 
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the 
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected]; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to 
[email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and petition 
for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the 
licensee.
    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail 
to [email protected].

Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to 
implement an Alternate Source Term (AST) as permitted by section 50.67 
of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) for calculating 
accident offsite dose and doses to control room personnel.
    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

[[Page 51489]]

consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The use of an alternative source term is recognized in the NRC 
[Nuclear Regulatory Commission] regulation 10 CFR 50.67; guidance 
for its implementation is provided in Regulatory Guide 1.183. The 
AST involves quantities, isotopic composition, chemical and physical 
characteristics, and release timing of radioactive material for use 
as inputs to accident dose analyses. As such, the AST cannot affect 
the probability of occurrence of a previously evaluated accident. No 
facility equipment, procedure, or process changes are required in 
conjunction with implementing the AST that could increase the 
likelihood of a previously analyzed accident. The proposed changes 
in the source term and the methodology for the dose consequence 
analyses generally follow the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.183. As 
a result, there is no increase in the likelihood of existing event 
initiators.
    Regarding consequences, the results of accident dose analyses 
using the AST are compared to TEDE [total effective dose equivalent] 
acceptance criteria that account for the sum of deep dose equivalent 
(for external exposure) and committed effective dose equivalent (for 
internal exposure). Dose results were previously compared to 
separate limits on whole body, thyroid, and skin doses as 
appropriate for the particular accident analyzed. The results of the 
revised dose consequences analyses demonstrate that the regulatory 
acceptance criteria are met for each analyzed event. Implementing 
the AST, however, involves no facility equipment, procedure, or 
process changes that could affect the radioactive material actually 
released during an event. Consequently, no conditions have been 
created that could significantly increase the consequences of any of 
the events being evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of any of the events 
being evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The AST involves quantities, isotopic composition, chemical and 
physical characteristics, and release timing of radioactive material 
for use as inputs to accident dose analyses. As such, the AST cannot 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. No 
facility equipment, procedure, or process changes have been made in 
conjunction with implementing the AST that could initiate or 
substantially alter the progression of an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Implementing the AST is relevant only to calculated accident 
dose consequences. The AST involves quantities, isotopic 
composition, chemical and physical characteristics, and release 
timing of radioactive material for use as inputs to accident dose 
analyses. The results of the revised dose consequences analyses 
demonstrate that the regulatory acceptance criteria are met for each 
analyzed event. No facility equipment, procedure, or process changes 
are required in conjunction with implementing the AST that could 
increase the exposure of control room or offsite individuals to 
radioactive material. The AST does not affect the transient behavior 
of non-radiological parameters (e.g., RCS [reactor coolant system] 
pressure, containment pressure) that are pertinent to margin of 
safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: N. S. Reynolds, Esquire, Winston & Strawn 
1400 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-3502.
    NRC Section Chief: Robert A. Gramm.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 8, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) Technical Specification 
(TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.4.6 and SR 3.8.4.7, DC Sources-
Operating, to change the values of battery charger currents, replace 
the specified battery charger voltage values with the phrase ``minimum 
established float voltage,'' add a new allowance for the method of 
verifying battery charger capacity, and remove a restriction on the 
conduct of a modified performance discharge test.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) section, 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its 
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is 
presented below:

    1. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with 
the proposed amendments does not result in a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The DC electrical power system provides normal and emergency DC 
electrical power for the standby emergency power sources, emergency 
auxiliaries, and control and switching during all Modes of 
operation. SR 3.8.4.6 verifies the design capacity of the battery 
chargers. SR 3.8.4.7 demonstrates the design requirements (battery 
duty cycle) of the DC electrical power system. The proposed 
amendment corrects a discrepancy between the TS Bases and FSAR 
[Final Safety Analysis Report] and better aligns the PBNP TS with 
the standard TS, which will enhance plant safety. Other proposed 
changes are bounded by different TS requirements or existing 
analyses contained in the FSAR, meet the intent of the existing 
tests, and do not result in relaxation of the underlying 
requirements.
    The proposed change does not involve any hardware changes, nor 
does it affect the probability of any event initiators. There will 
be no change to normal plant operating parameters, engineered safety 
feature actuation setpoints, accident mitigation capabilities, or 
accident analysis assumptions or inputs.
    Therefore, the probability or consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated will not be significantly increased as a result 
of the proposed change.
    2. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with 
the proposed amendments does not result in a new or different kind 
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure 
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result 
of the proposed change. The revised surveillance requirements will 
continue to assure equipment reliability such that plant safety is 
maintained or will be enhanced.
    Equipment important to safety will continue to operate as 
designed. The changes do not result in any event previously deemed 
incredible being made credible. The changes do not result in adverse 
conditions or result in any increase in the challenges to safety 
systems. Therefore, operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not create the 
possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with 
the proposed amendments does not result in a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The DC electrical power system provides normal and emergency DC 
electrical power for the standby emergency power sources, emergency 
auxiliaries, and control and switching during all Modes of 
operation. SR 3.8.4.6 verifies the design capacity of the battery 
chargers. SR 3.8.4.7 demonstrates the design requirements (battery 
duty cycle) of the DC electrical power system.
    The proposed change to these SRs continues to assure that design 
requirements of the DC electrical power system continue to be met. 
There will be no change to the departure from nucleate boiling ratio 
(DNBR) correlation limit, the design DNBR limits, or the safety 
analysis DNBR limits.

[[Page 51490]]

    There are no new or significant changes to the initial 
conditions contributing to accident severity or consequences. The 
proposed amendment will not otherwise affect the plant protective 
boundaries, will not cause a release of fission products to the 
public, nor will it degrade the performance of any other structures, 
systems or components (SSCs) important to safety. Therefore, the 
requested change will not result in a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, 
Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, 
Hudson, WI 54016.
    NRC Section Chief: L. Raghavan.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, 
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: June 23, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TS) requirements for verifying the 
operability of the remaining operable emergency diesel generator (EDG) 
when either unit's dedicated EDG or the shared EDG is inoperable.
    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:

    Dominion has reviewed the requirements of 10 CFR 50.92 as they 
relate to the proposed change to the Surry Power Station, Units 1 
and 2 Technical Specifications and has determined that a significant 
hazards consideration does not exist. The basis for this 
determination is provided as follows:
    1. Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    The proposed change does not impact the condition or performance 
of any plant structure, system or component. The proposed change 
clarifies the testing requirement for the operable EDG(s) to limit 
testing to only the intended purpose of the requirement, which is to 
confirm a common cause failure mechanism does not exist in the 
opposite train's EDG(s). The proposed change does not affect the 
initiators of analyzed events nor the assumed mitigation of accident 
or transient events. Common cause failure testing of the remaining 
operable EDG(s) will still occur unless the reason for the EDG 
inoperability is demonstrably not due to a common cause failure 
mechanism. Furthermore, elimination of unnecessary testing of the 
operable EDG(s) will reduce component wear and thus promote EDG 
reliability and consequentially safety equipment availability. As a 
result, the proposed change to the Surry Technical Specifications 
does not involve any increase in the probability or the consequences 
of any accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety 
previously evaluated since neither accident probabilities nor 
consequences are being affected by this proposed change.
    2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant or a change in the methods used to respond to plant 
transients. No new or different equipment is being installed and no 
installed equipment is being removed or operated in a different 
manner. There is no alteration to the parameters within which the 
plant is normally operated or in the setpoints which initiate 
protective or mitigative actions. The EDGs will continue to perform 
their required safety functions. Furthermore, common cause failure 
testing will continue to occur if the EDG failure mechanism cannot 
be eliminated as a common cause possibility. Consequently, no new 
failure modes are introduced by the proposed change. Therefore, the 
proposed change to the Surry Technical Specifications does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident or 
malfunction of equipment important to safety from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    The proposed TS change does not impact station operation or any 
plant structure, system or component that is relied upon for 
accident mitigation. Margin of safety is established through the 
design of the plant structures, systems and components, the 
parameters within which the plant is operated, and the establishment 
of the setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to 
respond to an event. Since station operations and EDG surveillance 
requirements are not affected by the proposed change, the EDGs will 
continue to be available to perform their required safety functions. 
Furthermore, the change does not impact the condition or performance 
of structures, systems or components relied upon for accident 
mitigation or any safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the 
proposed change to the Surry Technical Specifications does not 
involve any 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: Ms. Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, 
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Millstone Power Station, Building 
475, 5th Floor, Rope Ferry Road, Rt. 156, Waterford, Connecticut 06385.
    NRC Section Chief: Stephanie M. Coffin, Acting.

Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments 
to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The following notices were previously published as separate 
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were 
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the 
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action 
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the 
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued 
involving no significant hazards consideration.
    For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on 
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period 
of the original notice.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: July 28, 2003, as supplemented on May 
20, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification Section 5.5.6, ``Primary Containment Leakage 
Rate Testing Program,'' to allow a one-time extension of the interval 
between the Type A, integrated leakage rate tests, from 10 years to no 
more than 15 years.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: July 
27, 2004 (69 FR 44696).
    Expiration date of individual notice: September 27, 2004.

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

[[Page 51491]]

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, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible 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/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1 (800) 
397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].

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

    Date of application for amendment: April 21, 2003, as supplemented 
on September 11, 2003, March 31, 2004, and April 16, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications, Sections 3.7 and 4.7, ``Auxiliary Electrical Power,'' 
and added a new Section 6.8.5, ``Station Battery Monitoring and 
Maintenance Program,'' to make them generally consistent with guidance 
set forth in NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications, General 
Electric Plants, BWR/4,'' Revision 2, and with the industry guidance 
identified as Technical Specifications Task Force traveler 360, 
Revision 1.
    Date of Issuance: July 30, 2004.
    Effective date: July 30, 2004 and shall be implemented within 60 
days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 245.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
    The September 11, 2003, March 31, 2004, and April 16, 2004, letters 
provided clarifying information within the scope of the original 
application and did not change the staff's initial proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's 
related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety 
Evaluation dated July 30, 2004.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington

    Date of application for amendment: April 19, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: The proposed change revises 
Technical Specification 3.7.3, ``Control Room Emergency Filtration 
(CREF) System,'' to provide specific conditions, required actions, and 
completion times that address a degraded control room envelope pressure 
boundary. The associated Bases were also revised.
    Date of issuance: July 26, 2004.
    Effective date: July 26, 2004, and shall be implemented within 30 
days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 188.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 25, 2004 (69 FR 
29764).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 2004.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: May 7, 2004, as supplemented by letters 
dated July 8 and 16, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment clarifies the actions 
of Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.4.5.1, Reactor Coolant System (RCS) 
Leakage; revises the surveillance requirements (SRs) of TS 3/4.4.5.2, 
RCS Operational Leakage; and deletes duplication in TS 3/4.3.3.1, 
Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation. Also, the amendment deletes the 
containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitoring system from TS 
3/4.4.5.1. The amendment is based on NUREG-1432, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications Combustion Engineering Plants,'' Revision 2, dated April 
30, 2001.
    Date of issuance: July 30, 2004.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 197.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 25, 2004 (69 FR 
29765).
    The July 8 and 16, 2004, supplemental letters provided additional 
information that clarified the application, 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 amendment is contained in a 
Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2004.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendments: October 10, 2002, supplemented 
by letters dated October 10, and November 21, 2003, and January 13, 
July 8, and July 23, 2004.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the Dresden, 
Units 2 and 3, technical specifications (TS) to increase the required 
number of operable main steam safety valves from eight to nine and add 
surveillance requirements for the ninth valve.
    Date of issuance: July 30, 2004.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 208/200.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: Published in the 
Federal Register on December 10, 2002 (67 FR 75875).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2004.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 51492]]

Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of application for amendments: March 3, 2004.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 4.0.5 by updating the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure 
Vessel Code references as the source of inservice testing requirements 
for ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves. The amendments 
replace references to Section XI of the Code with references to the 
ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (ASME 
OM Code), and provides consistent use of terms between the TS and the 
ASME OM Code by adding a biennial surveillance interval.
    Date of issuance: July 22, 2004.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by February 21, 2005 for Unit 3, and by April 14, 2005 for Unit 4.
    Amendment Nos: 225 and 220.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 30, 2004 (69 FR 
16620).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 22, 2004.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Plant, 
Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of application for amendment: September 18, 2003.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical 
Specification (TS) Section 3.4.1, by relocating the primary coolant 
system pressure, cold-leg temperature, and flow departure from nucleate 
boiling limits to the core operating limits report. The amendment also 
revises TS section 5.6.5 to reflect the changes to TS section 3.4.1.
    Date of issuance: August 2, 2004.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 217.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-20. Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 14, 2003 (68 FR 
59218).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 2, 2004.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: December 1, 2003, and its supplement 
dated February 9, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the following 
technical specifications (TS): (1) Item 14 of Table 3-3, ``Minimum 
Frequences for Checks, Calibrations and Testing of Miscellaneous 
Instrumentation and Controls,'' regarding testing of the nuclear 
detector well cooling annulus exit air temperature detectors, (2) Item 
10a.2 of Table 3-5, ``Minimum Frequencies for Equipment Tests,'' 
correcting a typographical error in the title, (3) TS 3.17(iii), 
``Steam Generator Tubes,'' (4) TS 5.5, ``Review and Audit,'' (5) TS 
5.6, ``Reportable Event Action,'' (6) TSs 5.7.1.b, 5.7.1.c, and 
5.7.1.d, ``Safety Limit Violation,'' (7) TS 5.9.1.a, ``Startup 
Report,'' and (8) TS 5.9.4.c, ``Fire Protection Deficiency Report.'' 
These changes consist primarily of relocating material not required in 
the TSs to other licensee-controlled documents and correcting a 
typographical error.
    Date of issuance: July 23, 2004.
    Effective date: July 23, 2004, and shall be implemented within 120 
days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 228.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 2, 2004 (69 FR 
9863).
    The February 9, 2004, supplemental letter provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original no significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated July 23, 2004.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: December 23, 2002, as 
supplemented August 14, 2003.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the Hope 
Creek licensing basis, as described in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report, to replace the current plant-specific reactor pressure 
vessel material surveillance program with the Boiling Water Reactor 
Vessel and Internals Project Integrated Surveillance Program as the 
basis for demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Appendix H 
to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 50, ``Reactor 
Vessel Material Surveillance Program Requirements.''
    Date of issuance: July 23, 2004.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 151.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: This amendment revised the 
facility's License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 29, 2003 (68 FR 
22752). The August 14, 2003, letter provided clarifying information 
that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination or expand the application beyond the scope 
of the original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 23, 2004.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and 
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency 
Circumstances)

    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 for the 
amendment 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.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of 
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
Federal

[[Page 51493]]

Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used 
local media to provide notice to the public in the area surrounding a 
licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of the 
Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the 
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If 
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the 
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments 
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has 
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
significant hazards consideration is involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in 
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have 
been issued and made effective 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 
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating 
License, 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, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 
records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 
or by e-mail to [email protected].
    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date 
of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a 
hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject 
facility operating license and any person whose interest may be 
affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in 
the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition 
for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave 
to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules 
of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. 
Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which 
is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are 
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at 
1-(800)-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. If a 
request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by 
the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the 
Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety 
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; 
and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an 
appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and 
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The 
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine 
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or 
fact.\1\ Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor 
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one 
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To the extent that the applications contain attachments and 
supporting documents that are not publicly available because they 
are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information, 
petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the 
applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a 
protective order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha 
designation within on of the following groups:
    1. Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or

[[Page 51494]]

health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the applications.
    2. Environmental--primarily concerns/issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the 
applications.
    3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined 
above.
    As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors 
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall 
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act 
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a 
petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another 
sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to 
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that 
contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor a representative who shall have the authority to act for the 
petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.
    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. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the 
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing 
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any 
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected]; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to 
[email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and petition 
for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the 
licensee.
    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).

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: July 30, 2004, and its 
supplement dated July 30, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorizes a one-time 
change to the completion time of Required Action A.1 of Technical 
Specification 3.6.6, ``Containment Spray and Cooling Systems,'' to 
increase the completion time for containment spray pump 2-2 from 72 
hours to 14 days.
    Date of issuance: July 30, 2004.
    Effective date: July 30, 2004.
    Amendment Nos.: 173.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-82: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): No. The Commission's related evaluation of the 
amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, State consultation, and 
final NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated 
July 30, 2004.
    Attorney for licensee: Richard F. Locke, Esq., Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
    NRC Section Chief: Stephen Dembek.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-338, North Anna 
Power Station, Unit 1, Louisa County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: July 23, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment allows a one-time 
7-day completion time to repair a weld leak that was discovered on the 
low-head safety injection (LHSI) suction pump piping. This change is 
needed to prevent an unnecessary plant transient and unscheduled 
shutdown of North Anna Unit 1.
    Date of issuance: July 23, 2004.
    Effective date: July 23, 2004, and is effective until the `A' train 
of the Unit 1 LHSI system is returned to operable status or until July 
28, 2004, at 1723 hours, whichever occurs first.
    Amendment No.: 236.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-4: Amendment revises the 
Technical Specifications.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): No. The Commission's related evaluation of the 
amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, state consultation, and 
final NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated 
July 23, 2004.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, 
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Millstone Power Station, Building 
475, 5th Floor, Rope Ferry Road, Rt. 156, Waterford, Connecticut 06385.
    NRC Section Chief: Stephanie M. Coffin, Acting.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of August 2004.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James E. Lyons,
Deputy Director, Division of Licensing Project Management Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-18512 Filed 8-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P