Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 19110-19125 [05-6996]

Agencies

• Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19110-19125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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, https://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, HearingDocket@nrc.gov; 
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 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. 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, https://
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 pdr@nrc.gov.

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, https://
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 pdr@nrc.gov.

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