Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25883

The revised procedures required that

the approving radiologist sign the I–131

administration policy before ordering a

radiopharmaceutical. In addition, the

nuclear medicine technologist attended

a continuing education program at San

Francisco General Hospital, which

included a segment on the effects of

studies involving therapy dosages.

State Agency—The State Agency

conducted numerous follow-up

inspections to ensure that the licensee’s

actions taken to prevent recurrence had

been implemented.

This event is closed for the purpose

of this report.

* * * * *

AS 97–4 Radiopharmaceutical

Misadministration at Tuomey Regional

Medical Center in Sumter, South

Carolina

One of the AO criteria notes that a

medical misadministration that results

in a dose that is equal to or greater than

10 gray (Gy) (1000 rad) to any organ

(other than a major portion of the bone

marrow, to the lens of the eye, or to the

gonads) and represents a dose or dosage

that is at least 50 percent greater than

that prescribed in a written directive

will be considered for reporting as an

AO.

Date and Place—December 11, 1996;

Tuomey Regional Medical Center;

Sumter, South Carolina.

Nature and Probable Consequences—

A patient was prescribed a dosage of 74

megabecquerel (MBq) (2.0 millicurie

[mCi]) of iodine-131 (I–131) for a

treatment of Graves disease. However,

the patient was administered a 388.5

MBq (10.5 mCi) dosage of I–131. As a

result, the patient’s thyroid received a

dose of 40,400 centigray (cGy) (40,400

rad) instead of the prescribed dose of

7700 cGy (7700 rad).

The licensee stated that the

administered dose of I–131 to the

patient’s thyroid is not expected to have

major health effects.

Cause or Causes—The wrong dosage

was administered to the patient because

the written order for the I–131

procedure was misread by the

administering technologist.

Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence

Licensee—The licensee will have the

written order on hand before ordering

radiopharmaceuticals from the

pharmacy and will have a second

person verify the dosage before

administration to the patient.

State Agency—The State Agency

accepted the licensee’s report and

corrective action as appropriate. No

further action was requested.

This event is closed for the purpose

of this report.

* * * * *

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day

of May, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–12390 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–387 and 50–388]

Pennsylvania Power and Light

Company; Notice of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (Commission) has issued

Amendment No. 176 to Facility

Operating License No. NPF–14 and

Amendment No. 149 to Facility

Operating License No. NPF–22 issued to

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company

(PP&L, the licensee), which revised the

Technical Specifications (TSs) for

operation of the Susquehanna Steam

Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, located

in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The

amendment is effective as of the date of

issuance.

The amendment modified the TSs by

changing the Rod Block Monitor (RBM)

flow biased trip setpoints and also the

RBM channel calibration frequency and

allowed outage times.

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.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License and Opportunity for a Hearing

in connection with this action was

published in the Federal Register on

April 11, 1997 (62 FR 17885). No

request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene was filed following

this notice.

The Commission has prepared an

Environmental Assessment related to

the action and has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement. Based upon the

environmental assessment, the

Commission has concluded that the

issuance of the amendment will not

have a significant effect on the quality

of the human environment (63 FR

24197).

For further details with respect to the

action see (1) the application for

amendment dated November 27, 1996,

and supplemented by letter dated

February 12, 1997, (2) Amendment

No.176 to License No. NPF–14, (3)

Amendment No. 149 to License No.

NPF–22, (4) the Commission’s related

Safety Evaluation, and (5) the

Commission’s Environmental

Assessment. All of these items are

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local

public document room located at the

Osterhout Free Library, Reference

Department, 71 South Franklin Street,

Wilkes Barre, PA 18701.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day

of May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Victor Nerses,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

I–2, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–12391 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

Inc., et al.; Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendments to Facility

Operating Licenses, Proposed No

Significant Hazards Consideration

Determination, and Opportunity for a

Hearing

[Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425]

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–68

and NPF–81, issued to Southern

Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., et al.

(the licensee), for operation of the

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP),

Units 1 and 2, located in Burke County,

Georgia.

The proposed amendments would

revise the VEGP Technical

Specifications to authorize the licensee

to increase the storage capacity of the

VEGP Unit 1 spent fuel pool from the

present capacity of 288 fuel assemblies

to 1476 fuel assemblies. The change

would be accomplished by the

installation of high density fuel rack

modules. The racks would utilize a

neutron absorbing material between

cells to assure a subcritical

configuration.

The Commission had previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of