[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19110-19125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-6996]


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

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 March 18, 2005, through March 31, 2005. The 
last biweekly notice was published on March 29, 2005 (70 FR 15940).

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

[[Page 19111]]

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 
DirectivesBranch, 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 
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The 
filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene 
is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to 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:

[[Page 19112]]

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 email 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 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 PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to [email protected].

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, 
Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: December 17, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise 
Appendix B, Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), non-radiological, of 
the Facility Operating License (FOL) for Clinton Power Station. The 
proposed changes would retain certain elements of the EPP and would 
revise others by clarifying a number of items without changing the 
purpose, by removing the requirement for an annual report, by updating 
terminology, by deleting obsolete program information, and by 
standardizing the wording in the EPP.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No. The Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) are 
concerned with monitoring the effect that plant operations have on 
the environment for the purpose of protecting the environment and 
have no affect on any accident postulated in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Accident probabilities or 
consequences are not affected in any way by the environmental 
monitoring and reporting required by the EPPs. The deletion of 
portions of Appendix B of the FOL will not impact the design or 
operation of any plant system or component. No environmental 
protection requirements established by other Federal, State, or 
local agencies are being reduced by this license amendment request.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously 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 proposed changes are administrative in nature. 
Environmental monitoring and reporting have no effect on accident 
initiation. The deletion of portions of Appendix B of the FOL will 
not impact the design or operation of any plant system or component. 
There will be no effect on the types or amount of any effluents 
released from the plants.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No. These proposed changes are administrative in 
nature. Changes in the annual reporting requirements and other 
administrative revisions in accordance with this submittal have no 
impact on margin of safety. Environmental evaluations will still be 
performed, when necessary, on changes to plant design or operations 
to assess the effect on environmental protection. Review, analysis 
and investigation of Unusual and Important Environmental Events will 
still be performed in accordance with the Exelon and AmerGen 
Corrective Action Program.

    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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Section Chief: Gene Y. Suh.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania; 
Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 
2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: December 17, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise 
Appendix B, Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), non-radiological, of 
the Facility Operating License (FOL) for each of the units listed 
above. The proposed changes would retain certain elements of the EPPs 
and would revise others by clarifying a number of items without 
changing the purpose, by removing the requirement for an annual report, 
by updating terminology, by deleting obsolete program information, and 
by standardizing the wording in the EPPs.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No. The Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) are 
concerned with monitoring the effect that plant operations have on 
the environment for the purpose of protecting the environment and 
have no affect on any accident postulated in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Accident probabilities or 
consequences are not affected in any way by the environmental 
monitoring and reporting required by the EPPs. The deletion of 
portions of Appendix B of the FOL will not impact the design or 
operation of any plant system or component. No environmental 
protection requirements established by other Federal, State, or 
local agencies are being reduced by this license amendment request.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously 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 proposed changes are administrative in nature. 
Environmental

[[Page 19113]]

monitoring and reporting have no effect on accident initiation. The 
deletion of portions of Appendix B of the FOL will not impact the 
design or operation of any plant system or component. There will be 
no effect on the types or amount of any effluents released from the 
plants.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No. These proposed changes are administrative in 
nature. Changes in the annual reporting requirements and other 
administrative revisions in accordance with this submittal have no 
impact on margin of safety. Environmental evaluations will still be 
performed, when necessary, on changes to plant design or operations 
to assess the effect on environmental protection. Review, analysis 
and investigation of Unusual and Important Environmental Events will 
still be performed in accordance with the Exelon and AmerGen 
Corrective Action Program.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Section Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 17, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise 
Appendix B, Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), non-radiological, of 
the Facility Operating License (FOL) for Clinton Power Station. The 
proposed changes would retain certain elements of the EPP and would 
revise others by clarifying a number of items without changing the 
purpose, by removing the requirement for an annual report, by updating 
terminology, by deleting obsolete program information, and by 
standardizing the wording in the EPP.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No. The Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) are 
concerned with monitoring the effect that plant operations have on 
the environment for the purpose of protecting the environment and 
have no affect on any accident postulated in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Accident probabilities or 
consequences are not affected in any way by the environmental 
monitoring and reporting required by the EPPs. The deletion of 
portions of Appendix B of the FOL will not impact the design or 
operation of any plant system or component. No environmental 
protection requirements established by other Federal, State, or 
local agencies are being reduced by this license amendment request.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously 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 proposed changes are administrative in nature. 
Environmental monitoring and reporting have no effect on accident 
initiation. The deletion of portions of Appendix B of the FOL will 
not impact the design or operation of any plant system or component. 
There will be no effect on the types or amount of any effluents 
released from the plants.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No. These proposed changes are administrative in 
nature. Changes in the annual reporting requirements and other 
administrative revisions in accordance with this submittal have no 
impact on margin of safety. Environmental evaluations will still be 
performed, when necessary, on changes to plant design or operations 
to assess the effect on environmental protection. Review, analysis 
and investigation of Unusual and Important Environmental Events will 
still be performed in accordance with the Exelon and AmerGen 
Corrective Action Program.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.

    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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 25, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to revise 
Technical Specifications Section 3.7.A.3.a to reflect the capability 
upgrade of one of the offsite power lines from 69 kV to 230 kV by the 
owner of this line, Conective Energy Company. The offsite alternating 
current (AC) power normally supplies the station auxiliaries through 
the startup transformer. After the station is operating and supplying 
electric power to the grid, the offsite power acts as a standby source 
of power. The proposed change involves transmission lines external to 
the station, and would involve no physical or procedural changes to 
onsite equipment. There are no surveillance requirements associated 
with the offsite power sources, and no change in this regard is 
proposed.
    The proposed amendment would also include a clarification change to 
Section 3.7.A.2 to distinguish between the two current 230 kV lines (N-
line and O-line) from the new 230 kV S-line.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    (1) Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change upgrades the existing 69 kV offsite power 
supply line to a 230 kV supply line. An evaluation performed to 
assess the effects of the upgrade determined that upgrading the 69 
kV line to a 230 kV line does not degrade the reliability of the 
transmission interconnection with the Oyster Creek plant and 
therefore does not increase the probability of the occurrence of an 
accident. The proposed change will provide an equivalent or better 
level of reliability of the offsite power supply system. Since there 
is no reduction in the reliability of the offsite power supply 
system, there will be no increase in the potential for fuel failure 
and there is no increase in the consequences of any accidents 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously 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 proposed change upgrades the existing 69 kV offsite power 
supply line to a 230 kV

[[Page 19114]]

supply line. An evaluation performed to assess the effects of the 
upgrade determined that upgrading the 69 kV line to a 230 kV line 
does not degrade the reliability of the transmission interconnection 
with the Oyster Creek plant. The proposed change does not involve 
the use or installation of new plant equipment. Installed plant 
equipment is not operated in a new or different manner. No new or 
different system interactions are created, and no new processes are 
introduced.
    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.
    The proposed change upgrades the existing 69 kV offsite power 
supply line to a 230 kV supply line. The active or passive failure 
mechanisms that could adversely impact the consequences of an 
accident are not affected by this proposed change. All analyzed 
transient results remain well within the design values for 
structures, systems and components.
    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: Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LCC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile 
Island Station, Unit 1, Dauphine County, Pennsylvania; Docket No. 50-
461, Clinton Power Station Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: October 21, 2004, as supplemented by 
letter dated January 4, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
delete requirements from the Technical Specifications (TSs) to submit 
monthly operating reports and annual occupational radiation exposure 
reports. The changes are consistent with Revision 1 of Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Industry/Technical Specifications 
Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, 
TSTF-369, ``Removal of Monthly Operating and Occupational Radiation 
Exposure Report.'' The availability of this TS improvement was 
announced in the Federal Register (69 FR 35067) on June 23, 2004, as 
part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP).
    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued a notice 
of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) 
determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the 
Federal Register on September 25, 2003 (68 FR 55416). The licensee 
affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its 
application dated October 21, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated 
January 4, 2005.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of NSHC is presented below:

    1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change eliminates the Technical Specifications 
(TSs) reporting requirements to provide a monthly operating report 
of shutdown experience and operating statistics if the equivalent 
data is submitted using an industry electronic database. It also 
eliminates the TS reporting requirement for an annual occupational 
radiation exposure report, which provides information beyond that 
specified in NRC regulations. The proposed change involves no 
changes to plant systems or accident analyses. As such, the change 
is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of 
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or transients. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change 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, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment 
to be operated in a manner different from the present design. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    This is an administrative change to reporting requirements of 
plant operating information and occupational radiation exposure 
data, and has no effect on plant equipment, operating practices or 
safety analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    Based on the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion 
of the amendment request, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-245, 50-336, and 50-
423, Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, New London County, 
Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The requested change will delete 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for annual Occupational 
Radiation Exposure Reports (all Units), annual report regarding 
challenges to pressurizer relief and safety valves (Unit Nos. 2 and 3), 
and Monthly Operating Reports (Unit Nos. 2 and 3).
    The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no 
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing 
license amendment applications in the Federal Register on June 23, 2004 
(69 FR 35067). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the model 
NSHC determination in its application dated December 21, 2004.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration 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 proposed change eliminates the TSs reporting requirements to 
provide a monthly operating letter report of shutdown experience and 
operating statistics if the equivalent data is submitted using an 
industry electronic database. It also eliminates the TS reporting 
requirement for an annual occupational radiation exposure report, 
which provides information beyond that specified in NRC regulations. 
The proposed change involves no changes to plant systems or accident 
analyses. As such, the change is administrative in nature and does 
not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of 
accidents or transients. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously 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 proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment 
to be operated in a manner different from the present design. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.

[[Page 19115]]

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This is an administrative change to reporting requirements of 
plant operating information and occupational radiation exposure 
data, and has no effect on plant equipment, operating practices or 
safety analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    Based upon the reasoning presented above, the requested change does 
not involve significance hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 
06385.
    NRC Section Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois; Docket 
Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle 
County, Illinois; Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County 
Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois; Docket Nos. 50-254 
and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock 
Island County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: December 17, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise 
Appendix B, Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), non-radiological, of 
the Facility Operating License (FOL) for each of the units listed 
above. The proposed changes would retain certain elements of the EPPs 
and would revise others by clarifying a number of items without 
changing the purpose, by removing the requirement for an annual report, 
by updating terminology, by deleting obsolete program information, and 
by standardizing the wording in the EPPs.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No. The Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) are 
concerned with monitoring the effect that plant operations have on 
the environment for the purpose of protecting the environment and 
have no affect on any accident postulated in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Accident probabilities or 
consequences are not affected in any way by the environmental 
monitoring and reporting required by the EPPs. The deletion of 
portions of Appendix B of the FOL will not impact the design or 
operation of any plant system or component. No environmental 
protection requirements established by other Federal, State, or 
local agencies are being reduced by this license amendment request.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously 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 proposed changes are administrative in nature. 
Environmental monitoring and reporting have no effect on accident 
initiation. The deletion of portions of Appendix B of the FOL will 
not impact the design or operation of any plant system or component. 
There will be no effect on the types or amount of any effluents 
released from the plants.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No. These proposed changes are administrative in 
nature. Changes in the annual reporting requirements and other 
administrative revisions in accordance with this submittal have no 
impact on margin of safety. Environmental evaluations will still be 
performed, when necessary, on changes to plant design or operations 
to assess the effect on environmental protection. Review, analysis 
and investigation of Unusual and Important Environmental Events will 
still be performed in accordance with the Exelon and AmerGen 
Corrective Action Program.

    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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Section Chief: Gene Y. Suh.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, IL

    Date of amendment request: December 9, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment requests 
new actions for an inoperable battery charger and alternate battery 
charger testing criteria for Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 
3.8.4 and 3.8.5. The proposed changes also includes the relocation of a 
number of Surveillance Requirements (SR) in Technical Specification 
(TS) Section 3.8.4 that perform preventative maintenance on the safety 
related batteries to a licensee-controlled program. It is proposed that 
TS Table 3.8.6-1, ``Battery Cell Parameter Requirements,'' be relocated 
to a licensee-controlled program, and specific actions with associated 
completion times for out-of-limits conditions for battery cell voltage, 
electrolyte level, and electrolyte temperature be added to TS Section 
3.8.6. In addition, specific SR are being proposed for verification of 
these parameters.
    A new program is being proposed for the maintenance and monitoring 
of station batteries based on the recommendations of Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 450-1995, ``IEEE 
Recommended Practice for Maintenance, Testing, and Replacement of 
Vented Lead-Acid Batteries for Stationary Applications.'' The items 
proposed to be relocated will be contained within this new program.
    The proposed changes will allow additional time for maintenance and 
testing of the normal 250 volts direct current (VDC) and 125 VDC 
divisional battery chargers. In addition, relocation of the 
preventative maintenance SR and battery cell parameter requirements to 
a licensee-controlled program will continue to provide an adequate 
level of control of these requirements, assure the batteries are 
maintained at current levels of performance, allow flexibility to 
monitor and control these limits at values directly related to the 
batteries' ability to perform their assumed function, and allow the TS 
to focus on parameter value degradation that approach levels that may 
impact battery operability.
    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:

    Criterion 1--The proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes restructure the Technical Specifications 
(TS) for the direct current (DC) electrical power system. The 
proposed changes add actions to specifically address battery charger 
inoperability. The DC electrical power system, including the 
associated battery chargers, is not an initiator of any accident 
sequence analyzed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR). Operation in accordance with the proposed TS ensures that 
the DC electrical power system is capable of performing its function 
as described in the UFSAR.

[[Page 19116]]

Therefore, the mitigative functions supported by the DC electrical 
power system will continue to provide the protection assumed by the 
analysis.
    The relocation of preventative maintenance surveillances, and 
certain operating limits and actions, to a newly-created licensee-
controlled Battery Monitoring and Maintenance Program will not 
challenge the ability of the DC electrical power system to preform 
its design function. Appropriate monitoring and maintenance, 
consistent with industry standards, will continue to be performed. 
In addition, the DC electrical power system is within the scope of 
10 CFR 50.65, ``Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of 
maintenance at nuclear power plants,'' which will ensure the control 
of maintenance activities associated with the DC electrical power 
system.
    The integrity of fission product barriers, plant configuration, 
and operating procedures as described in the UFSAR will not be 
affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the consequences of 
previously analyzed accidents will not increase by implementing 
these changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    Criterion 2--The proposed changes do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed changes involve restructuring the TS for the DC 
electrical power system. The DC electrical power system, including 
associated battery chargers, is not an initiator to any accident 
sequence analyzed in the UFSAR. Rather, the DC electrical power 
system is used to supply equipment used to mitigate an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    Criterion 3--The proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    The margin of safety is established through equipment design, 
operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions 
are initiated. The proposed changes will not adversely affect 
operation of plant equipment. These changes will not result in a 
change to the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated. 
Sufficient DC capacity to support operation of mitigation equipment 
is ensured. The changes associated with the new battery maintenance 
and monitoring program will ensure that the station batteries are 
maintained in a highly reliable manner. The equipment fed by the DC 
electrical sources will continue to provide adequate power to safety 
related loads in accordance with analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Section Chief: Gene Y. Suh.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach 
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster 
Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: October 21, 2004, as supplemented by 
letter dated January 4, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
delete requirements from the Technical Specifications (TSs) to submit 
monthly operating reports and annual occupational radiation exposure 
reports. The changes are consistent with Revision 1 of Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Industry/Technical Specifications 
Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, 
TSTF-369, ``Removal of Monthly Operating and Occupational Radiation 
Exposure Report.'' The availability of this TS improvement was 
announced in the Federal Register (69 FR 35067) on June 23, 2004, as 
part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP).
    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued a notice 
of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) 
determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the 
Federal Register on June 23, 2004 (69 FR 36067). The licensee affirmed 
the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application 
dated October 21, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated January 4, 
2005.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of NSHC is presented below:

    Criterion 1--Does the proposed change involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    The proposed change eliminates the Technical Specifications 
(TSs) reporting requirements to provide a monthly operating report 
of shutdown experience and operating statistics if the equivalent 
data is submitted using an industry electronic database. It also 
eliminates the TS reporting requirement for an annual occupational 
radiation exposure report, which provides information beyond that 
specified in NRC regulations. The proposed change involves no 
changes to plant systems or accident analyses. As such, the change 
is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of 
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or transients. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Criterion 2--Does the proposed change 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, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment 
to be operated in a manner different from the present design. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    Criterion 3--Does the proposed change involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety?
    This is an administrative change to reporting requirements of 
plant operating information and occupational radiation exposure 
data, and has no effect on plant equipment, operating practices or 
safety analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    Based on the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion 
of the amendment request, the requested change does not involve a 
significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Section Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: February 10, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements for Salem 
Nuclear Generating Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, TS 
4.5.3.2.b would be modified to remove the restriction of operating a 
safety injection pump or charging pump for testing purposes only. 
Additionally, the proposed change would allow testing of the pumps, 
provided the pump being tested is in a recirculation flow path with the 
manual discharge valve or disabled automatic valve(s) in flow paths to 
the reactor coolant system (RCS) closed. The proposed change would 
provide the licensee the flexibility to operate the safety injection 
and charging pumps while the pumps are isolated from the RCS.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

[[Page 19117]]

licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant 
hazards 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.
    In Mode 4 with the RCS coolant temperature less than 312 [deg]F 
or in Modes 5 and 6 when the head is on the reactor vessel, there is 
a potential risk of a low temperature overpressurization condition. 
Mass additions of coolant by the safety injection and charging pumps 
could cause such an event to the extent that these pump flows exceed 
the ability of a single overpressure protection relief valve to 
protect the system. In order to eliminate this possibility, 
provisions are made to allow a maximum of one pump to be in service 
with the other pumps disabled except for testing with the pump 
isolated from the RCS. Provisions are made to ensure that a pump 
being tested cannot inject into the vessel. The proposed change 
merely adds flexibility to safety injection pump operation while 
continuing to assure isolation from the RCS. The proposed change 
continues to offer an equivalent means of affording the required 
protection against low temperature overpressurization.
    Based upon the above, the proposed change will not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously analyzed.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change permits a minor change in the operation of 
the plant by adding flexibility to safety injection pump operation 
while continuing to assure isolation from the RCS. The proposed 
change continues to offer an equivalent means of affording the 
required protection against low temperature overpressurization. The 
proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated in 
the UFSAR [updated final safety analysis report]. No new accident 
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 
introduced as a result of the proposed changes. Specifically, no new 
hardware is being added to the plant as part of the proposed change, 
no existing equipment is being modified, and no significant changes 
in operations are being introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
    The proposed change will not alter any assumptions, initial 
conditions, or results of any accident analyses. The proposed change 
maintains the level of protection against a low temperature 
overpressurization condition.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business 
Unit--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Section Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna 
Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York

    Date of amendment request: December 20, 2004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the surveillance requirements to verify the acceptability of new 
diesel fuel oil for use, prior to addition to the storage tanks, and to 
stored fuel oil.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:
    1. Does the proposed changes involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes involve the expansion of the test used to 
establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use prior to 
addition to storage tanks, to allow a water and sediment content 
test to be performed. In addition, a limit is being added for the 
amount of particulate allowed in stored fuel, and the specific 
allowance to utilize the exceptions of SR 3.0.2 and SR 3.0.3.
    Allowing a water and sediment content test to be performed to 
establish the acceptability of new fuel oil, including a limit for 
particulate for the stored fuel oil, and adding the allowance of SR 
3.0.2 and SR 3.0.3 will not affect nor degrade the ability of the 
emergency diesel generators (DGs) to perform their specified safety 
function.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or 
prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 
from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences 
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The 
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment 
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating 
the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 
Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts 
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor 
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public 
radiation exposures.
    Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously 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 proposed changes involve the expansion of the test used to 
establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use prior to 
addition to the storage tanks, to allow a water and sediment content 
test to be performed. In addition, a limit is being added for the 
amount of particulate allowed in stored fuel, and the specific 
allowance to utilize the exceptions of SR 3.0.2 and SR 3.0.3.
    The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant 
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The changes 
do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing 
basis.
    Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes involve the expansion of the test used to 
establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use prior to 
addition to storage tanks, to allow a water and sediment content 
test to be performed. In addition, a limit is being added for the 
amount of particulate allowed in stored fuel, and the specific 
allowance to utilize the exceptions of SR 3.0.2 and SR 3.0.3.
    The level of safety of facility operation is unaffected by the 
proposed changes since there is no change in the intent of the TS 
requirements of assuring fuel oil is of the appropriate quality for 
emergency DG use. The response of the plant systems to accidents and 
transients reported in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) is unaffected by this change. Therefore, accident analysis 
acceptance criteria are not affected.
    The proposed changes do not reduce a margin of safety since they 
have no impact on any transient or safety analysis assumptions. 
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Daniel F. Stenger, Ballard Spahr Andrews & 
Ingersoll, LLP, 601 13th Street, NW.,

[[Page 19118]]

Suite 1000 South, Washington, DC 20005.
    NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these 
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room (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 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 PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by email to [email protected].

Consumers Energy Company, Docket No. 50-155, Big Rock Point Nuclear 
Plant, Charlevoix County, Michigan

    Date of application for amendment: April 1, 2003, as supplemented 
by letter dated July 1, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment adds a license 
condition which approves the License Termination Plan (LTP) for the Big 
Rock Point Nuclear Plant, and provides the criteria by which the 
licensee may make changes to the LTP without prior NRC approval.
    Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 126.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-6: The amendment adds a 
condition to the Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 21, 2003 (68 FR 
2800), and November 25, 2003 (68 FR 66133). The Commission's related 
evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated 
March 24, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan

    Date of application for amendment: September 16, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.7.6.1 that allows a 5 
percent stroke rather than a complete (100 percent) stroke of each 
Turbine Bypass Valve (TBV), and extends the surveillance frequency from 
92 days to 120 days. The complete stroke verification currently 
required by SR 3.7.6.1 once after each entry into MODE 4 would be 
retained and renumbered SR 3.7.6.2. The system functional test (current 
SR 3.7.6.2) and the TBV response time test (current SR 3.7.6.3) were 
renumbered as SR 3.7.6.3 and SR 3.7.6.4, respectively.
    Date of issuance: March 29, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 165.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 9, 2004 (69 FR 
64985).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423, 
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of application for amendment: February 10, 2005, as 
supplemented March 23, 2005.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment extends the allowed 
outage time (AOT) for the emergency diesel generator (EDG) load 
sequencer (EGLS) from 6 to 12 hours.
    Date of issuance: March 29, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 5 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 221.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-49: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 22, 2005 (70 
FR 8641).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear 
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

    Date of application for amendments: September 29, 2003, as 
supplemented by letters dated April 22, May 20, June 9, and July 29, 
2004.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendment revises the 
Technical Specification 3.7.15 spent fuel pool (SFP) storage criteria 
based upon fuel type, fuel enrichment, burnup, cooling time and partial 
credit for soluble boron in the SFP. The amendment also allows for the 
safe storage of fuel assemblies with a nominal enrichment of Uranium-
235 up to 5.00 weight percent. In addition, this amendment decreases 
the required soluble boron credit, that provides an acceptable margin 
of subcriticality in the McGuire Nuclear Station (McGuire), Units 1 and 
2, spent fuel storage pools.
    Date of issuance: March 17, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 227 and 207.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 14, 2004 (69 
FR 55469).
    The supplements dated April 22, May 20, June 9, and July 29, 2004, 
provided additional information that clarified the

[[Page 19119]]

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 as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 17, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee 
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendments: September 28, 2004.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments eliminate the 
technical specification requirements to submit monthly operating 
reports and annual occupational radiation exposure reports.
    Date of issuance: March 24, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 342, 344, & 343.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 23, 2004 (69 
FR 68182).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 24, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New York

    Date of amendment request: June 2, 2004, as supplemented on 
December 8, 15, and 22, 2004, and January 5 and 28, February 11 and 22, 
and March 14, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revises the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to fully adopt the alternative source 
term (AST) methodology for design-basis accident dose consequence 
evaluations in accordance with 10 CFR 50.67. Specifically, the 
amendment revises the TS Definition regarding dose equivalent iodine 
and TS Section 5.5.10, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP).'' 
The AST methodology for the fuel-handling accident was previously 
approved in Amendment No. 215, dated March 17, 2003.
    Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 224.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-64: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 2004 (69 FR 
53104).
    The December 8, 15, and 22, 2004, and January 5 and 28, February 11 
and 22, and March 14, 2005, supplements provided additional information 
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the 
application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: June 3, 2004, as supplemented on 
November 18 and December 15, 2004 (2), and February 3 and 11, 2005.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the operating 
license and Technical Specifications (TSs) to authorize an increase in 
the maximum steady-state reactor core power level from 3067.4 megawatt 
thermal (MWt) to 3216 MWt. This represents a nominal increase of 4.85% 
rated thermal power. The amendment also revises the TSs to relocate 
certain cycle-specific parameters to the Core Operating Limits Report 
(COLR) by adopting TS Task Force Traveler TSTF-339, ``Relocate 
Technical Specification Parameters to the COLR.'' In addition, the 
amendment revises several allowable values in TS Table 3.3.1-1, 
``Reactor Protection System (RPS) Instrumentation,'' and Table 3.3.2-1, 
``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation.''
    Date of issuance: March 24, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 225.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-64: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 2004 (69 FR 
53105). The November 18 and December 15, 2004, and February 3 and 11, 
2005, supplements provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 24, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

    Date of application for amendment: September 1, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted the Technical 
Specification (TS) requirements to submit monthly operating reports and 
annual occupational radiation exposure reports.
    Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 212.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the 
TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 9, 2004 (69 FR 
64989).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts.

    Date of application for amendment: April 14, 2004, as supplemented 
on November 10, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) Section 4.7.A.2.a, ``Primary Containment 
Integrity,'' to allow a one-time interval extension of no more than 5 
years for the Type A, Integrated Leakage Rate Test.
    Date of issuance: March 30, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 213.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the 
TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 26, 2004 (69 FR 
62473).
    The November 10, 2004, supplement provided additional information 
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the 
application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register. The

[[Page 19120]]

Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a 
Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont

    Date of application for amendment: September 16, 2003 as 
supplemented by letter dated March 15, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment relocated the 
current definition of surveillance frequency to new Technical 
Specification (TS) Sections 4.0.2 and 4.0.3, and revises the 
requirements for a missed surveillance in TS Section 4.0.3. This change 
allows a longer period of time to perform a missed surveillance. The 
time is extended from the current limit of up to 24 hours or up to the 
limit of the specified frequency, whichever is less; to up to 24 hours 
or up to the limit of the specified frequency, whichever is greater. In 
conjunction with the proposed change, this amendment added the 
requirements for a TS Bases Control Program which is consistent with 
Section 5.5 of NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications, General 
Electric Plants, BWR [boiling-water reactor]/4''. In addition, the 
current definition of surveillance frequency (definition ``Y'') has 
been relocated to new TS Sections 4.0.2 and 4.0.3. The current 
definition of surveillance interval (definition ``Z'') has been re-
worded and relocated to new TS Section 4.0.1 consistent with 
Surveillance Requirement 3.0.1 of NUREG-1433. Appropriate TS Bases, 
also consistent with NUREG-1433, have been adopted for the new 
sections. An editorial change has been made to TS 6.7.C to have the 
reference for the definition of surveillance frequency refer to the new 
Section 4.0.2.
    Date of Issuance: March 16, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 221.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment revised the 
TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 21, 2004 (69 
FR 76491).
    The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 16, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont

    Date of application for amendment: September 1, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) by eliminating the requirements to submit monthly 
operating reports and annual occupational radiation exposure reports.
    Date of Issuance: March 22, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 222.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 12, 2004 (69 FR 
60680).
    The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont

    Date of application for amendment: July 31, 2003, as supplemented 
on October 10, November 7 (2 letters), November 20, December 11 (2 
letters), and December 30, 2003, and February 10, February 18, February 
25, March 17, May 12, and July 20, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) and licensing basis to incorporate a full-scope 
application of an alternative source term methodology in accordance 
with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 50.67, 
``Accident Source Term.''
    Date of Issuance: March 29, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 223.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The Amendment revised the 
TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2003 (68 
FR 66135). The supplements contained clarifying information only, and 
did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration 
determination or expand the scope of the initial Federal Register 
notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
2, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: May 12, 2004, as completely superseded 
by application dated July 8, 2004, as supplemented by letters dated 
October 14, 2004, and January 19 and March 7, 2005.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the 
analytical methods referenced in Technical Specification (TS) 6.6.5 by 
replacing the existing physics code package with a Westinghouse Nuclear 
Physics code package and incorporating the methodologies that will 
support the use of ZIRLO fuel cladding and zirconium diboride burnable 
absorber coating on uranium dioxide fuel pellets. The amendment also 
implements TS Task Force Traveler No. 363, to revise the way analytical 
methods are listed in TS 6.6.5 by identifying the topical report 
numbers and titles only, and relocating specific revisions, supplement 
numbers, and approval dates to the core operating limits report. The 
portion of the application requesting to delete the TS Index will 
continue to be reviewed and will not be included in this amendment. 
Therefore, the correlating Index page will be revised as necessary.
    Date of issuance: March 23, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 257.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: The amendment revises the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 2004 (69 FR 
53106).
    The supplements dated October 14, 2004, and January 19 and March 7, 
2005, 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 as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 23, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
2 (ANO-2), Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: July 8, 2004, as supplemented by letters 
dated February 2, March 8, and March 28, 2005.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment removes the automatic

[[Page 19121]]

closure interlock (ACI) function and deletes the Technical 
Specification surveillance requirement associated with the shutdown 
cooling system ACI. The change also provides a higher pressure setpoint 
for the open permissive interlock (OPI) and maintains continued 
functionality of the OPI with a license condition.
    Date of issuance: March 30, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 258.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-6: The amendments revise the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 2004 (69 FR 
53106).
    The supplements dated February 2, March 8, and March 28, 2005, 
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 as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated: March 30, 2005.
    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: July 15, 2004, and supplemented by 
letters dated August 19, September 1, September 14, October 13, and 
October 19, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: The change implements a full-scope 
alternative source term (AST) for determining accident offsite doses 
and accident doses to control room personnel.
    Date of issuance: March 29, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to restart from refueling outage 13 in the spring of 2005 in 
order to update the design assumption regarding in-leakage, resolve 
concerns identified in Generic Letter 2003-01, and support the power 
uprate implementation.
    Amendment No.: 198.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the 
Updated Final Safety Analyses Report.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 19, 2004 (69 FR 
51488). The supplements dated August 19, September 1, September 14, 
October 13, and October 19, 2004, 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 as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois.

    Date of application for amendments: April 30, 2004.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify requirements 
in Technical Specifications (TS) to adopt the provisions of Industry/TS 
Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-359, ``Increased Flexibility in Mode 
Restraints.''
    Date of issuance: March 18, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 171, 157.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 26, 2004 (69 FR 
62474).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 18, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: February 27, 2004, as 
supplemented September 13, 2004.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments allowed for the 
activation of the trip outputs of the previously installed oscillation 
power range monitor portion of the power range neutron monitoring 
system. Specifically, this change revised Technical Specifications 
(TSs) Sections 3.3.1.1, ``Reactor Protection System (RPS) 
Instrumentation,'' 3.4.1, ``Recirculation Loops Operating,'' and their 
associated TS Bases, and 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report 
(COLR).'' In addition, the change deleted the Interim Corrective Action 
requirements from the Recirculation Loops Operating TSs.
    Date of issuance: March 21, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendments Nos.: 251 and 254.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 13, 2004 (69 FR 
19570). The September 13, 2004, 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 proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 21, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-412, 
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2 (BVPS-2), Beaver County, 
Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendment: July 23, 2004, as supplemented 
by letter dated December 8, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the BVPS-2 
Technical Specifications (TSs) eliminating periodic response time 
testing requirements on selected sensors and selected protection 
channel components and permits the option of either measuring or 
verifying the response times by means other than testing.
    Date of issuance: March 24, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No: 147.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-73: Amendment revised the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 2004 (69 FR 
53109).
    The supplement dated December 8, 2004, 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 as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 24, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: November 22, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment eliminates the 
requirements

[[Page 19122]]

to submit monthly operating reports and occupational radiation exposure 
reports.
    Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 211.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR 
2891).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy 
Center, Linn County, Iowa

    Date of application for amendment: February 27, 2004, as 
supplemented by letters dated August 9, 2004, and January 7, 2005.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies license 
condition 2.C.(2)(b) to remove the requirement to perform a full main 
steam isolation valve closure test associated with extended power 
uprate. The additional request in the application to modify licensee 
condition 2.C.(2)(b) to eliminate the requirement to perform a main 
generator load reject test is not included in this amendment and will 
be addressed by separate correspondence.
    Date of issuance: March 17, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 257.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment revised the 
Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April, 13 2004 (69 FR 
19572).
    The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did 
not change the initial no significant hazards consideration 
determination and did not expand the scope of the original Federal 
Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 17, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Nuclear 
Power Plant, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin

    Date of application for amendment: May 25, 2004, as supplemented 
February 10, 2005.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) by adding the demand step counters to the TSs and 
adding a note to allow for a soak time subsequent to substantial rod 
motion for the rods that exceed their position limits before invoking 
the TS requirements.
    Date of issuance: March 17, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 181.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 6, 2004 (69 FR 
40675).
    The supplement dated February 10, 2005, 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. 0
    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: September 8, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment deleted the 
Technical Specifications associated with the hydrogen monitors.
    Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
    Effective date: March 22, 2005, and shall be implemented within 120 
days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 234.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR 
2894).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 
California

    Date of application for amendments: November 1, 2004.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendment eliminates the 
requirements to submit monthly operating reports and annual 
occupational radiation exposure reports.
    Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-180; Unit 2-182.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR 
2894).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: September 22, 2004.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specifications (TS) requirements to adopt the provisions of Industry/TS 
Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-359, ``Increased Flexibility in Mode 
Restraints.''
    Date of issuance: March 18, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 219 and 195.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR 
2895).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 18, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County, 
Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: March 4, 2004.
    Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendment revised the 
SSES 1 and 2 Technical Specification Table 3.3.5.1-1 to clarify that 
four low-pressure coolant injection pump discharge pressure-high 
channels are required for each automatic depressurization system trip 
function.
    Date of issuance: March 29, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 220 and 196.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.

[[Page 19123]]

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 27, 2004 (69 FR 
22881).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia

    Date of application for amendment: September 8, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: These amendments delete the 
Technical Specifications associated with hydrogen recombiners and 
hydrogen monitors.
    Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 238 and 219.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments 
change the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR 
2902).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia Date 
of application for amendment:

    December 21, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: These amendments eliminate the 
requirements to submit monthly operating reports and annual 
occupational radiation exposure reports.
    Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 239 and 220.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments 
change the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR 
2903).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: September 8, 2004.
    Brief Description of amendments: These amendments delete the 
Technical Specifications associated with hydrogen monitors.
    Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 239 and 238.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: 
Amendments change the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR 
2902).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: December 21, 2004.
    Brief Description of amendments: These amendments revise the 
Technical Specifications by eliminating the requirements to submit 
monthly operating reports and occupational radiation exposure reports.
    Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
    Effective date: March 22, 2005.
    Amendment Nos.: 240 and 239.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: 
Amendments change the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR 
2903).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
    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 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.

[[Page 19124]]

    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 (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 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 one of the following groups:
    1. Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or 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

[[Page 19125]]

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).

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), 
Unit No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: March 9, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment revises TS 3/
4.7.6, ``Control Room Normal and Emergency Air Handling System,'' and 
associated Bases, to provide an Action when the Control Room Normal and 
Emergency Air Handling System ventilation boundary is inoperable and a 
note that allows the ventilation boundary to be open, intermittently 
under administrative controls.
    Date of issuance: March 21, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 171.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises 
the Technical Specifications.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public Notices were given in the Columbia 
The State on March 16 and 17 and in the Newberry Observer on March 16 
and 18. The notices provided an opportunity to submit comments on the 
Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been 
received. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding 
of exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC 
determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated March 21, 
2005.
    Attorney for licensee: Thomas Eppink.
    NRC Section Chief: John A. Nakoski.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of April 2005.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-6996 Filed 4-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P