[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36520-36526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12635]


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

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 June 7, 2007 to June 20, 2007. The last 
biweekly notice was published on June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33779).

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

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

[[Page 36521]]

opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected]; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to 
[email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and petition 
for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the 
licensee.
    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the 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. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: December 12, 2007, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 31, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise 
the TMI-1 Technical Specifications (TS) to relocate the reactor 
building refueling area and spent fuel storage area radiation monitor 
operability requirements from the TS to the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) and plant procedures, since these radiation 
monitors do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the TS as presented 
in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii). To further support the proposed change, the 
current TMI-1 Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling Building has 
been reanalyzed without credit for actuation of the Fuel Handling 
Building ventilation exhaust filtration system on a high radiation 
signal from these monitors. The proposed amendment would also establish 
compliance with criticality accident requirements in accordance with 10 
CFR 50.68(b) versus those contained in 10 CFR 70.24.
    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 amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed relocation is administrative in nature and does not 
involve the modification of any plant equipment or affect plant 
operation. The associated radiation monitors provide refueling and 
spent fuel pool area radiation monitoring for personnel protection 
during fuel loading and refueling operations. The associated 
instrumentation is not assumed to be an initiator of any analyzed 
event, nor are these functions assumed in the mitigation of 
consequences of accidents. Additionally, the associated required 
actions for inoperable components do not impact the initiation or 
mitigation of any accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The associated radiation monitors are designed to provide 
refueling and spent fuel pool area radiation monitoring for 
personnel protection during fuel loading and refueling operations. 
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not require 
any physical alteration of plant equipment, and does not change the 
method by which any safety related system performs its function. As 
such, no new or different types of equipment will be installed, and 
the design function and basic operation of installed equipment is 
unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain 
consistent with current safety analysis assumptions.
    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 amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not negate any existing requirement, 
and does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the 
reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety 
analysis. As such, there are no changes being made to safety 
analysis assumptions, safety limits or safety system settings that 
would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed 
change.

[[Page 36522]]

Margins of safety are unaffected by requirements that are retained, 
but relocated from the Technical Specifications to the UFSAR and 
plant procedures. Further, the proposed change to relocate current 
Technical Specification requirements to the UFSAR and plant 
procedures is consistent with regulatory guidance and previously 
approved changes for other stations, and is administrative in 
nature. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in any margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Brad Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 
19348.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 26, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
incorporate the administrative controls of a new Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.0.6, which has been approved for use as TS 3.0.5 
in NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse 
Plants,'' Revision 3.1, dated December 1, 2005. The proposed 
specification provides an exception of TSs 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 to allow the 
performance of required testing to demonstrate the operability of the 
equipment being returned to service or the operability of other 
equipment.
    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 incorporation of Technical Specification 3.0.6 
allows restoration of equipment to service under administrative 
controls when it has been removed from service or declared 
inoperable to comply with action requirements. The potential impact 
of temporarily returning the equipment to service is considered to 
be insignificant since the equipment has been restored to a 
condition which is expected to provide the required safety function. 
As stated in GL [Generic Letter] 87-09, ``It is overly conservative 
to assume that the systems or components are inoperable when a 
surveillance has not been performed because the vast majority of 
surveillances do in fact demonstrate that systems or components are 
operable.'' Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Since the equipment to be restored is already out of service, 
the availability of the equipment has been previously considered in 
the evaluation of consequences of an accident. Temporarily returning 
the equipment to service in a state which is expected to function as 
required to mitigate the consequences of a previously analyzed 
accident will promote timely restoration of the equipment and 
restore the capabilities of the equipment to mitigate the 
consequences of any event previously analyzed. Therefore, the 
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the probability of a new or 
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No. The proposed changes do not introduce a new mode 
of plant operation and do not involve physical modification to the 
plant. Operation with the inoperable equipment temporarily restored 
to service is not considered a new mode of operation since existing 
procedures and administrative controls prevent the restoration of 
equipment to service until it is considered capable of providing the 
required safety functions.
    Performance of the testing is considered to be a confirmatory 
check of that capability which demonstrates that the equipment is 
indeed operable in the majority of the cases. For those times when 
equipment which may be temporarily returned to service under 
administrative controls is subsequently determined to be inoperable, 
the resulting condition is comparable to the equipment having been 
determined to remain inoperable during operation, with continued 
operation for a specified time allowed to complete required actions. 
Since this condition has been previously evaluated in the 
development of the current Technical Specifications, the proposed 
changes do not create the probability 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. Temporarily returning inoperable equipment to 
service for the purpose of confirming operability, places the plant 
in a condition which has been previously evaluated and determined to 
be acceptable for short periods. Additionally, the equipment has 
been determined to be in a condition which provides the margin of 
safety previously determined. The performance of the surveillance/
testing simply confirms the expected result and capability of the 
equipment. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    Based upon the reasoning presented above 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: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 4, 2007.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
incorporate the administrative changes to Technical Specification 
6.2.1.a, ``On and Offsite Organization'' and 6.8.1.a, ``Procedures and 
Programs,'' which are related to the common Quality Assurance Topical 
Report.
    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?
    No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature (1) 
correcting the reference of the Quality Assurance Topical Report in 
the Technical Specification (TS) Section 6.2.1.a; and (2) removing 
references to Regulatory Guide 1.33 and specific sections of the 
ANSI [American National Standards Institute] N 18.7 1972 from TS 
Section 6.8.1 .a and instead referencing the Quality Assurance 
Topical Report. These changes do not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated because they do not affect assumptions contained in plant 
safety analyses, the physical design and/or operation of the plant, 
nor do they affect Technical.
    Specifications that preserve safety analysis assumptions. 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the probability or 
consequences of accidents previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the probability of a new or 
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature (1) 
correcting the reference of the Quality Assurance Topical Report in 
the Technical Specification (TS) Section 6.2.1.a; and (2) removing 
references to Regulatory Guide 1.33 and specific sections of the 
ANSI N18.7 1972 from TS Section 6.8.1.a and instead referencing the 
Quality Assurance Topical Report. These changes do not introduce a 
new mode of plant operation and do not involve physical modification 
to the plant. No new failure is

[[Page 36523]]

introduced since they do not involve the addition or modification of 
equipment nor do they alter the design or operation of plant 
systems, structures or components. Therefore, the proposed changes 
do not create the probability 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?
    No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature (1) 
correcting the reference of the Quality Assurance Topical Report in 
the Technical Specification (TS) Section 6.2.1.a; and (2) removing 
references to Regulatory Guide 1.33 and specific sections of the 
ANSI N18.7 1972 from TS Section 6.8.1.a and instead referencing the 
Quality Assurance Topical Report. The operating limits and 
functional capabilities of the systems, structures and components 
are unchanged. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    Based upon the reasoning presented above 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: M.S. Ross, 
Attorney, Florida Power & Light, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 
33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2, Louisa County, 
Virginia

    Date of amendment request: May 29, 2007
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to control 
room envelope (CRE) habitability in accordance with Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification 
Change Traveler, TSTF-448, Revision 3, using the consolidated line-item 
improvement process (CLIIP), by changing the action and surveillance 
requirements associated with the limiting condition for operation 
operability requirements for the CRE emergency ventilation system, and 
by adding a new TS administrative controls program on CRE habitability.
    The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model safety 
evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) 
determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the 
Federal Register on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022). The licensee 
affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its 
application dated May 29, 2007.
    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. Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a 
Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an 
Accident Previously Evaluated.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change 
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency 
ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to 
minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE 
atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents 
previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency 
ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency 
ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident 
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify 
the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to 
assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency 
ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological 
consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that 
the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the 
consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the 
Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident 
Previously Evaluated. The proposed change does not impact the 
accident analysis. The proposed change does not alter the required 
mitigation capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system, or 
its functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the 
licensing basis analyses of design basis accident radiological 
consequences to CRE occupants. No new or different accidents result 
from performing the new surveillance or following the new program. 
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a significant change in the methods governing normal 
plant operation. The proposed change does not alter any safety 
analysis assumptions and is consistent with current plant operating 
practice. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a 
Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety 
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an 
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to 
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 
shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request 
involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, 
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Millstone Power Station, Building 
475, 5th Floor, Rope Ferry Road, Rt. 156, Waterford, Connecticut 06385
    NRC Branch Chief: Evangelos C. Marinos

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 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.

[[Page 36524]]

    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 e-mail to [email protected].

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of application for amendment: May 30, 2006, supplemented by 
letters dated February 27, and April 10, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Palisades 
Nuclear Plant Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.5.8. The change 
revises the repair criteria and essentially results in the licensee's 
not having to inspect the lower portion of the tube within the 
tubesheet (since all flaws in this region are acceptable).
    Date of issuance: May 31, 2007
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 225.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20. Amendment revised 
the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 24, 2006 (71 FR 
62310).
    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 May 31, 2007.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 
50-412, Beaver ValleyPower Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver County, 
Pennsylvania; and Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 
No. 1, Lake County, Ohio

    Date of application for amendments: January 11, 2007.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify technical 
specification requirements for inoperable snubbers by adding Limiting 
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.8, which is consistent with Technical 
Specification Task Force Change Traveler No. 372, Revision 4, 
``Addition of LCO 3.0.8, Inoperability of Snubbers.''
    Date of issuance: June 14, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
with 120 days of the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 279/162, 144.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR66, NPF-73, and NPF-58: 
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (72 FR 
11389) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 14, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

    Date of application for amendment: December 12, 2006, as 
supplemented by letter dated March 14, 2007.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specification (TS) requirements for inoperable snubbers by adding 
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.8. The amendment also makes 
an administrative change to LCO 3.0.1.
    Date of issuance: June 15, 2007.
    Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 224.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revised the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 10, 2007 (72 FR 
17950). The supplement was included in the staff's initial proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 15, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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 application for amendments: June 30, 2006.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments relocate Technical 
Specification (TS) 3/4.3.3.2, ``Movable Incore Detectors'' and TS 3/
4.3.3.9, ``Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Oxygen Monitoring 
Instrumentation'' to the Salem Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR). The amendments also revise TS 3/4.11.2.5, ``Explosive Gas 
Mixture'' to reflect the relocation of TS 3.3-13 from the TSs to the 
UFSAR.
    Date of issuance: June 6, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 282 and 265.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The amendments 
revised the TSs and the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 7, 2006 (71 FR 
65143).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2007.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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 application for amendments: August 11, 2006, as 
supplemented by letter dated May 7, 2007.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments relocate the 
instrument response time limits for the reactor trip system (RTS) and 
engineered safety features actuation system (ESFAS) from Technical 
Specification (TS) Tables 3.3-2 and 3.3-5 to the Salem Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
    Date of issuance: June 19, 2007.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 90 days. Implementation shall include the relocation of the RTS 
and ESFAS response times from TS Tables 3.3-2 and 3.3-5 to the Salem 
UFSAR as described in the licensee's application dated August 11, 2006.
    Amendment Nos.: 283 and 266.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The amendments 
revised the TSs and the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 12, 2006 (71 
FR 53719).
    The letter dated May 7, 2007, provided clarifying information that 
did not change the initial proposed no

[[Page 36525]]

significant hazards consideration determination or expand the 
application beyond the scope of the original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2007.
    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.
    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/

[[Page 36526]]

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 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).

Duke Power Company LLC, Docket No. 50-369, McGuire Nuclear Station, 
Unit 1 Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: June 7, 2007 as supplemented June 8, 
2007. The supplement provided additional clarifying information that 
clarified the application and did not expand the scope of the proposed 
no significant hazards consideration determination.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment approved a one-
time extension of the allowed outage time (AOT) for the 1A emergency 
diesel generator from 72 hours to a total of 10 days.
    Date of issuance: June 8, 2007.
    Effective date: As of date of issuance to be implemented within 30 
days.
    Amendment No.: 241
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-9: Amendment revised the 
license and the technical specifications.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC 
determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated June 8, 2007.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Associate General 
Counsel and Managing Attorney, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 526 South 
Church Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Evangelos C. Marinos.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of June 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E7-12635 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P