51378 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 

public meetings in another format (e.g., 

braille, large print), please notify the 

NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, 

August Spector, at 301–415–7080, TDD: 

301–415–2100, or by e-mail at 

aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on 

requests for reasonable accommodations 

will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

This notice is distributed by mail to 

several hundred subscribers; if you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969). 

In addition, distribution of this meeting 

notice over the Internet system is 

available. If you are interested in 

receiving this Commission meeting 

schedule electronically, please send an 

electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. 

Dated: August 25, 2005. 

R. Michelle Schroll, 

Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–17292 Filed 8–26–05; 10:09 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M 

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 August 5, 

2005, to August 18, 2005. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

August 16, 2005 (70 FR 48201). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 

of the facility in accordance with the 

proposed amendment would not (1) 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated; or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. Within 60 days after the 

date of publication of this notice, the 

licensee may file a request for a hearing 

with respect to issuance of the 

amendment to the subject facility 

operating license and any person whose 

interest may be affected by this 

proceeding and who wishes to 

participate as a party in the proceeding 

must file a written request for a hearing 

and a petition for leave to intervene. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rules and 

Directives Branch, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and should cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 

Register notice. Written comments may 

also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two 

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 

Copies of written comments received 

may be examined at the Commission’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), located 

at One White Flint North, Public File 

Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of 

requests for a hearing and petitions for 

leave to intervene is discussed below. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 51379 

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 basis 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner/requestor 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the petitioner/requestor intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the 

amendment under consideration. The 

contention must be one which, if 

proven, would entitle the petitioner/ 

requestor to relief. A petitioner/ 

requestor who fails to satisfy these 

requirements with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. 

If a hearing is requested, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

A request for a hearing or a petition 

for leave to intervene must be filed by: 

(1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express 

mail, and expedited delivery services: 

Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, 

Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail 

addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

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, 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 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–336, Millstone Power 

Station, Unit No. 2, New London 

County, Connecticut 

Date of amendment request: July 14, 

2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would modify the 

Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 

reactor coolant system (RCS) heatup and 

cooldown limits Technical Specification 

(TS) 3.4.9.1, ‘‘Reactor Coolant System’’. 

The associated TS bases will be updated 

to address the proposed changes. 

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 changes are a result of the 

new analysis of the RCS P–T [pressuretemperature] limits and associated heatup/ 

cooldown rates. These changes will support 

plant operation to 54 EFPY [effective fullpower years] and provide flexibility during 

plant heatup and cooldown, especially 

during equipment manipulations such as 

securing RCPs [reactor coolant pumps], 

swapping SDC [shutdown cooling] heat 

exchangers, and initiating SDC. 

The hydrostatic and leak test limit will 

now be administratively controlled by the 

heatup limit. Administratively limiting 

hydrostatic and leak tests to the heatup limit 

provides additional margin to the Appendix 

G requirements. Table 3.4–2 has been 

modified to remove the Inservice Hydrostatic 

and Leak Testing item and to add a note 

indicating heatup limitations also apply to 

hydrostatic and leak test conditions. The 

requirement to remain isothermal (rate ‘‘ 5 

°F/hour) for 1 hour prior [to] and during 

hydrostatic and leak test [s] above the heatup 

curve is no longer needed as operation above 

the heatup curve is no longer allowed. 

The proposed changes to the RCS P–T 

limits and rates of temperature change are 

based on the new analysis. This analysis uses 

standard approved methods that ensure the 

margins of safety required by 10 CFR 50, 

Appendix G are maintained. The other 

changes discussed are more restrictive 

enhancements to technical specification 

requirements. Therefore, the proposed 

changes will not result in 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 proposed changes will not alter the 

plant configuration (no new or different type 

of equipment will be installed) or require any 

new or unusual operator actions. They do not 

alter the way any structure, system, or 

component functions. The increased heatup 

and cooldown rates are bounded by the 

existing accident analysis. The proposed 

changes do not introduce any new failure 

modes. Therefore, the proposed changes will 

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? 

51380 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes will modify the RCS 

P–T limits, and the RCS heatup and 

cooldown rate limits. The proposed changes 

are being made as a result of the new P–T 

and LTOP [low-temperature overpressure 

protection] analyses performed. The new P–

T curves and heatup and cooldown rates are 

developed in accordance with the 

requirements and methods described in 10 

CFR 50 Appendix G and are consistent with 

the criteria contained in the Standard Review 

Plan Section 5.3.2. This will ensure the 

integrity of the reactor vessel is maintained 

during all aspects of plant operation. 

Therefore, there is no significant effect on the 

probability or consequences of any accident 

previously evaluated and no significant 

impact on offsite doses associated with 

previously evaluated accidents. This license 

amendment request does not result in a 

reduction of the margin of safety as defined 

in the bases for the technical specifications 

addressed by the proposed changes. 

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: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., 

Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385. 

NRC Section Chief: Darrell J. Roberts. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear 

Power Station, Plymouth County, 

Massachusetts 

Date of amendment request: May 24, 

2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Technical Specification allowances 

to bypass the rod worth minimizer 

consistent with previously-approved 

standards. 

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 special 

operation allowances do not involve the 

modification of any plant equipment or affect 

basic plant operation. The relevant design 

basis accident is the control rod drop 

accident (CRDA), which involves multiple 

failures to initiate the event. Control rod 

decoupling and remaining stuck full-in while 

its drive mechanism is withdrawn are 

required initiators. The proposed special 

operations have no adverse impact on control 

rod coupling or control rod performance. As 

such, there is no significant increase in the 

probability of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

The CRDA analysis consequences and 

related initial conditions remain unchanged 

when invoking the proposed special 

operation allowance. The control rod 

withdrawal sequence is assumed to limit 

individual control rod worths as another 

initial condition for the CRDA. However, 

consistent with existing requirements for 

control rod withdrawal operations, all 

control rod withdrawal sequences are 

analyzed to meet this criterion and are 

implemented under the control of the rod 

worth minimizer or by independent 

verification by a second licensed operator or 

other qualified member of the technical staff. 

The consequences of analyzed events are 

therefore not affected. Therefore, the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the 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 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 

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 change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. The proposed special 

operation allowances do not involve the 

modification of any plant equipment or affect 

basic plant operation. The relevant design 

basis accident is the control rod drop 

accident (CRDA), which involves multiple 

failures to initiate the event. Additionally, 

CRDA analysis consequences and related 

initial conditions remain unchanged when 

invoking the proposed special operation 

allowance. These changes do not negate any 

existing requirement, and do 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. 

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: J.M. Fulton, 

Esquire, Assistant General Counsel, 

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, 600 

Rocky Hill Road, Plymouth, 

Massachusetts, 02360–5599. 

NRC Section Chief: Darrell Roberts. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear 

Power Station, Plymouth County, 

Massachusetts 

Date of amendment request: May 24, 

2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) 

applicability requirements related to 

primary containment oxygen 

concentration and drywell-tosuppression chamber differential 

pressure limits. 

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 applicability 

and associated default actions being revised 

do not involve the modification of any plant 

equipment or affect basic plant operation. 

Additionally, the associated limitations are 

not assumed to be an initiator of any 

analyzed event. Therefore, the proposed 

change does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

The limits imposed by the associated 

specifications remain unchanged. The 

consequences of analyzed events are 

therefore not affected. Brief periods where 

the requirements for maintaining these limits 

are relaxed are currently considered in the 

TS and associated licensing basis. The 

proposed change clarifies and modifies the 

definition of these periods, however, any 

changes are not considered significant and 

are supported by remaining [definitions] 

consistent with the recommended allowances 

of NUREG–1433, Rev. 3, ‘‘Standard Technical 

Specifications, General Electric Plants, BWR 

[boiling-water reactor]/4.’’ Therefore, the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the 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 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 

basic operation of installed equipment is 

unchanged. The methods governing plant 

operation and testing remain consistent with 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 51381 

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 change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. The proposed applicability 

and associated default actions being revised 

do not involve the modification of any plant 

equipment or affect basic plant operation. 

Additionally, the associated limitations 

remain unchanged. These changes do not 

negate any existing requirement, and do 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. The revised plant conditions 

reflecting the applicability and the duration 

allowed to restore limits are not credited in 

any design basis event. These changes do not 

reflect any significant adverse impact to the 

overall risk of operating during brief periods 

without the required primary containment 

oxygen concentration since the total time for 

any occurrence is only marginally extended 

and reflects times recommended by NUREG–

1433. 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: J.M. Fulton, 

Esquire, Assistant General Counsel, 

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, 600 

Rocky Hill Road, Plymouth, 

Massachusetts, 02360–5599. 

NRC Section Chief: Darrell Roberts. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy 

Resources, Inc., South Mississippi 

Electric Power Association, and Entergy 

Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416, 

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 

Claiborne County, Mississippi 

Date of amendment request: June 27, 

2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment revises the 

Facilities Operating License to change 

technical specification (TS) 3.6.1.3, 

Required Actions A.1 and B.1, to add 

closed relief valves as acceptable 

isolation devices provided that the relief 

setpoint is greater than 1.5 times 

containment design pressure. 

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. 

Primary Containment Isolation Valves 

(PCIVs) are accident mitigating features 

designed to limit releases from the 

containment following an accident. The 

Technical Specifications (TS) specify actions 

to be taken to preserve the containment 

isolation function if a PCIV is inoperable. 

These actions include isolating the 

penetration flow path by specific methods. 

The proposed TS change adds closed relief 

valves with acceptable relief setpoints as 

another method to isolate the penetration 

flowpath. The use of relief valves with relief 

setpoints greater than 1.5 times the 

containment design pressure meets the 

Standard Review Plan options for acceptable 

isolation devices. This relief setpoint 

provides [a] sufficient margin to minimize 

the potential for premature opening due to 

containment post-accident pressures. The 

proposed change does not affect any 

initiators to 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 does not introduce 

any new modes of plant operation or 

adversely affect the design function or 

operation of safety features. The proposed TS 

change allows use of existing plant 

equipment as compensatory measures to 

maintain the containment isolation design 

intent when the normal isolation features are 

inoperable. Since relief valves used for this 

purpose will not be disabled by blind flanges, 

the system piping overpressure protection 

design feature will also be preserved. 

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 safety margin associated with this 

change is that associated with preserving the 

containment integrity. NUREG–0800, the 

Standard Review Plan, recognizes that relief 

valves with relief setpoints greater than 1.5 

times containment design pressure are 

acceptable as containment isolation devices. 

Closed relief valves with relief setpoints of 

this margin provide an isolation alternative 

that is less susceptible to a single failure (i.e., 

inadvertent opening) yet still preserves the 

overpressure protection that the component 

was intended to provide. 

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: Nicholas S. 

Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn, 

1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20006–3817. 

NRC Section Chief: David Terao. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad 

Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 

and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois 

Date of amendment request: June 15, 

2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change revises Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.3.2.2 ‘‘Feedwater 

System and Main Turbine High Water 

Level Trip Instrumentation,’’ to reflect a 

design change to the instrumentation 

logic. 

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? 

The proposed change revises TS 3.3.2.2 to 

reflect a design change to the instrumentation 

logic that trips the three feedwater pumps 

and main turbine. The design change will 

add a redundant high reactor water level trip 

channel to both trip systems. The Feedwater 

System and main turbine high water level 

trip is credited in the QCNPS [Quad Cities 

Nuclear Power Station] accident analysis to 

function during an increase in feedwater flow 

transient. Specifically, the instrumentation 

and associated trip limits the reactor water 

level increase resulting from a feedwater 

controller failure during maximum flow 

demand, thus preventing a nuclear fuel 

minimum critical power ratio violation 

associated with increased subcooling and 

resultant pressure transient. Additionally, 

this trip function prevents excessive water 

inventory from entering the main steam 

system and damaging steam-handling 

equipment. 

TS requirements that govern operability or 

routine testing of plant instruments are not 

assumed to be initiators of any analyzed 

event because these instruments are intended 

to detect, prevent, or mitigate accidents. The 

Feedwater System and main turbine trip 

instrumentation serves to mitigate transients 

that result in increased reactor water level. 

The trip instrumentation associated with the 

proposed changes and design change are 

independent from the instrumentation and 

logic used in the Feedwater Control System 

and Turbine Control System. Therefore, the 

proposed change does not involve a 

51382 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 

significant increase in the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

The proposed design change to add a 

redundant high reactor water level trip 

channel to both trip systems, and the 

associated TS changes, do not adversely 

impact the instrumentation’s ability to 

perform the functions described above. The 

design change will utilize installed spare trip 

units and relay contacts of the same design 

as those presently credited to meet TS 3.3.2.2 

requirements. The method in which the 

reactor water level is sensed and the reactor 

water level setpoints at which a trip is 

initiated are not impacted. The 

instrumentation response times and the 

instrumentation output to the equipment 

being tripped remains the same. Therefore, 

the proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. Furthermore, 

there will be no change in the types or 

significant increase in the amounts of any 

effluents released offsite. 

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 alter the 

parameters within which the plant is 

operated. There are no setpoints at which 

protective or mitigative actions are initiated 

that are affected by the proposed change. 

This proposed change will not alter the 

manner in which equipment operation is 

initiated nor will the demands on mitigating 

equipment be changed. The proposed change 

to TS 3.3.2.2 adds redundant instrumentation 

to improve system reliability, and increase 

maintenance and testing flexibility. The 

instrumentation being added to the trip logic 

utilizes the same transmitters, and the same 

type of trip units and trip relays, as presently 

used to monitor reactor water level and 

initiate Emergency Core Cooling System 

operation. 

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? 

Margins of safety are established in the 

design of components, the configuration of 

components to meet certain performance 

parameters, and in the establishment of 

setpoints to initiate alarms or actions. The 

proposed amendment supports a change to 

the logic that trips the three feedwater pumps 

and the main turbine from a two-out-of-two 

initiation logic to a one-out-of-two twice 

initiation logic. The proposed amendment 

does not alter the setpoints at which the trip 

function occurs, the response time of the trip 

initiation logic, or the plant response 

following a valid trip signal. The proposed 

changes to the TS 3.3.2.2 Required Actions 

and Completion Times are consistent with 

other instrumentation TS that incorporate a 

one-out-of-two twice initiation logic. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

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. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, 

Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: August 4, 

2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

Hope Creek Generating Station 

Technical Specification 3.7.1.3, 

‘‘Ultimate Heat Sink,’’ to allow a 24- 

hour average temperature to be used if 

ultimate heat sink temperature exceeds 

89.5 °F provided the ultimate heat sink 

temperature or safety auxiliary cooling 

system temperature does not exceed 95 

°F. 

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 ultimate heat sink (UHS) is not an 

accident indicator. An increase in UHS 

temperature will not increase the probability 

of occurrence of an accident. The proposed 

change will allow plant operation to continue 

if temperature of the UHS exceeds 89.5 °F 

provided that UHS temperature averaged 

over the previous 24-hour period is less than 

89.5 °F and the UHS temperature and safety 

auxiliary cooling system (SACS) 

temperatures do not exceed 95 °F. 

Maintaining these temperatures less than or 

equal to 95 °F ensures that accident 

mitigation equipment will continue to 

perform its required function. 

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 of different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change will not install any 

new or different equipment or modify 

equipment in the plant. The proposed change 

will not alter the operation or function of 

structures, systems or components. The 

response of the plant and the operators 

following a design basis accident is 

unaffected by this change. The proposed 

change does not introduce any new failure 

modes and the design basis heat removal 

capability of the safety related components is 

maintained at the increased UHS temperature 

limit. 

Therefore, the proposed chage will 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 the margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The increase to the UHS temperature will 

not adversely affect design basis accident 

mitigation equipment. Ensuring that SACS 

temperature remains below 95 °F when UHS 

is above 89.5 °F ensures that heat removal 

capability is within the current analyzed 

limits. Accident mitigation equipment will 

continue to function as assumed in the 

accident analysis. Therefore, the proposed 

change does not involve a significant 

reduction in the margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for Licensee: Jeffrie J. 

Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business 

Unit—N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks 

Bridge, NJ 08038. 

NRC Section Chief: Darrell J. Roberts. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 51383 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) 

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items are available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209, 

(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–461, Clinton Power Station, Unit 

1, DeWitt County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendment: 

December 17, 2004. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Appendix B, 

Environmental Protection Plan (nonradiological) of the Clinton Facility 

Operating License. 

Date of issuance: August 9, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 166. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–

62: The amendment revised the 

Environmental Protection Plan. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 12, 2005 (70 FR 19112). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 9, 2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–289, Three Mile Island Nuclear 

Station, Unit 1 (TMI–1), Dauphin 

County, Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendment: 

October 20, 2004. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Table 4.1–1, 

‘‘Instrument Surveillance 

Requirements,’’ of the Technical 

Specifications and associated Bases to 

extend the functional testing 

surveillance interval from monthly to a 

semi-annual interval for reactor trip 

system instrumentation channels, and 

from the current monthly to quarterly 

for the reactor trip devices. 

Date of issuance: August 11, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 255. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

50. Amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 23, 2004 (69 FR 

68181) 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 11, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–289, Three Mile Island Nuclear 

Station, Unit 1 (TMI–1), Dauphin 

County, Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendment: 

June 24, 2004, as supplemented 

February 24, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised TMI–1 Technical 

Specification (TS) 4.0.2 to adopt the 

provisions of Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF) Traveller TSTF–358, 

Revision 6, revising the required actions 

and time constraints regarding missed 

surveillances. The amendment also 

added a new Section 6.18 to the TSs 

incorporating a Technical Specifications 

Bases Control Program. 

Date of issuance: August 12, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 256. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

50. Amendment revised the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 1, 2005 (70 FR 9987). 

The supplement dated February 24, 

2005, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the NRC staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination . The Commission’s 

related evaluation of the amendment is 

contained in a Safety Evaluation dated 

August 12, 2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Carolina Power & Light Company, 

Docket No. 50–261, H. B. Robinson 

Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, 

Darlington County, South Carolina 

Date of application for amendment: 

June 21, 2004. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment changes Technical 

Specification Section 5.5.14, ‘‘Technical 

Specifications (TS) Bases Control 

Program,’’ to incorporate changes in 

Section 50.59 of Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations terminology. The 

amendment also revises Section 5.7.1, 

‘‘High Radiation Area,’’ by adding 

wording that was inadvertently deleted 

with the issuance of the Improved 

Standard Technical Specifications in 

Amendment No. 176. 

Date of issuance: August 2, 2005. 

Effective date: August 2, 2005. 

Amendment No.: 205. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–23. Amendment revises the 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 31, 2004 (69 FR 

53101). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 2, 2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–423, Millstone Power 

Station, Unit No. 3, New London 

County, Connecticut 

Date of application for amendment: 

December 23, 2004. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment relocated certain Technical 

Specifications (TSs) to the Millstone 

Power Station, Unit No. 3 Technical 

Requirements Manual. 

Date of issuance: August 11, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 225. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–

49: The amendment revised the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 24, 2005 (70 FR 29788). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 11, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–

313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: 

September 30, 2004, as supplemented 

by letters dated April 26 and June 8, 

2005. 

51384 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment changes the existing steam 

generator (SG) tube surveillance 

program to be consistent with that being 

proposed by the Technical Specification 

(TS) Task Force (TSTF) in TSTF–449. 

These changes revise definitions in TS 

1.1, reactor coolant system operational 

leakage in TS 3.4.13, SG program in TS 

5.5.9, and SG tube inspection reports in 

TS 5.6.7, and add a new TS 3.4.16 on 

SG tube integrity. Also, as a result of the 

licensee replacing the SGs with SGs 

having a new Alloy 690 thermally 

treated tubing design, the TSs are 

revised to reflect this replacement. 

Date of issuance: August 10, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to resumption of operation from 

the 1R19 refueling outage scheduled for 

the fall of 2005. 

Amendment No.: 224. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–51: Amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of notices in Federal Register: 

November 9, 2004 (69 FR 64987) and 

May 24, 2005 (70 FR 29790). The 

supplement dated June 8, 2005, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 10, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC 

and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont. 

Date of application for amendment: 

December 6, 2004, as supplemented on 

June 14, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment makes administrative and 

other miscellaneous changes to the 

Facility Operating License (FOL) and 

Technical Specifications (TSs) 

including correction of references and 

deleting obsolete or redundant TS 

requirements and surveillances. 

Date of Issuance: August 15, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 226. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

28: The amendment revised the FOL 

and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR 

2888). The supplement contained 

clarifying information only, and did not 

change the initial no significant hazards 

consideration determination or expand 

the scope of the initial Federal Register 

notice. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of this amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 15, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 

and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and 

Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania. 

Date of application for amendments: 

September 15, 2004. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments deleted the Technical 

Specification requirements to maintain 

hydrogen recombiners and hydrogen/ 

oxygen monitors and related 

Surveillance Requirements. 

Date of issuance: August 11, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 120 

days. 

Amendments Nos.: 256 and 259. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 1, 2005, (70 FR 

5244). The Commission’s related 

evaluation of the amendments is 

contained in a Safety Evaluation dated 

August 11, 2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, Docket No. 50–346, DavisBesse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, 

Ottawa County, Ohio 

Date of application for amendment: 

April 22, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) related to fuel 

handling and storage. Specifically, the 

changes revised TS 3/4.9.11, ‘‘Storage 

Pool Water Level,’’ TS 3/4.9.12, 

‘‘Storage Pool Ventilation,’’ TS 3/4.9.13, 

‘‘Spent Fuel Assembly Storage,’’ and TS 

5.6, ‘‘Fuel Storage,’’ to reflect that spent 

fuel storage racks are no longer installed 

in the cask pit or transfer pit. Fuel 

storage racks were permitted to be 

temporarily installed in the cask pit and 

transfer pit during a project to increase 

spent fuel pool (SFP) storage capacity. 

All temporarily installed fuel storage 

racks have now been moved into the 

SFP. Additionally, the changes 

relocated the requirements of TS 3/ 

4.9.7, ‘‘Crane Travel—Fuel Handling 

Building,’’ to the Davis-Besse Nuclear 

Power Station Technical Requirements 

Manual. The changes to TS 3/4.9.13 and 

TS 5.6 also reflected that there are no 

longer low density fuel storage racks in 

the SFP. The changes made TS 

requirements consistent with the 

current fuel storage design. 

Date of issuance: August 16, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days. 

Amendment No.: 266. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–3: 

Amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 24, 2005 (70 FR 29795). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, Docket No. 50–346, DavisBesse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, 

Ottawa County, Ohio 

Date of application for amendment: 

February 22, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications by eliminating the 

requirements to provide the NRC 

monthly operating reports and annual 

occupational radiation exposure reports. 

Date of issuance: August 16, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 267. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–3: 

The amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24651). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry 

Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Lake 

County, Ohio 

Date of application for amendment: 

February 22, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications by eliminating the 

requirements to submit the NRC 

monthly operating reports and annual 

occupational radiation exposure reports. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 51385 

Date of issuance: August 16, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 136. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–

58: The amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24651). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 

2005. 

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: 

October 14, 2004. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises a technical 

specification surveillance requirement 

to change the required frequency of the 

reactor building spray nozzle 

surveillance from once every 10 years to 

‘‘following maintenance that could 

result in nozzle blockage.’’

Date of issuance: August 4, 2005. 

Effective date: August 4, 2005. 

Amendment No.: 219. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

72: Amendment revises the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR 

2891). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 4, 2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Indiana Michigan Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald 

C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

Berrien County, Michigan 

Date of application for amendments: 

February 25, 2005, as supplemented 

June 2, 2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modify the Technical 

Specifications by revising the near-endof-life moderator temperature coefficient 

(MTC) surveillance requirement by 

placing a set of conditions on core 

performance, which, if met, would 

allow conditional exemption from the 

required MTC measurement. 

Date of issuance: August 8, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 45 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 288, 270. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

58 and DPR–74: Amendments revised 

the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 29, 2005 (70 FR 

15943). 

The supplement dated June 2, 2005, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s original proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. The 

Commission’s related evaluation of the 

amendments is contained in a Safety 

Evaluation dated August 8, 2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306, Prairie 

Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 

1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota 

Date of application for amendments: 

September 1, 2004, as supplemented by 

letter dated May 17, 2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments approve the use of 

Generation of Thermal-Hydraulic 

Information Containment Version 7.1 

patch 1 (GOTHIC), for licensing 

analyses for the Prairie Island Nuclear 

Generating Plants to (1) evaluate the 

short-term peak pressure and 

temperature response of the 

containment atmosphere to large pipe 

breaks in high energy piping systems—

the design-basis loss-of-coolant accident 

(LOCA) and the design-basis main steam 

line break, and (2) to evaluate the longterm containment response following a 

design-basis LOCA. 

Date of issuance: August 12, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 171,161. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

42 and DPR–60: Amendments revised 

the Updated Safety Analysis Report. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 28, 2004 (69 FR 

57990). 

The supplemental letter 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 amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 12, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–

387 and 50–388, Susquehanna Steam 

Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne 

County, Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendments: 

March 5, 2004. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specifications Surveillance 

Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.3 to require 

that only one secondary containment 

access door in each access opening be 

verified closed. In addition, SR 3.6.4.1.3 

allows entry and exit access between 

required secondary containment zones 

that have a single door. 

Date of issuance: August 16, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 224 and 201. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

14 and NPF–22: The amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 27, 2004 (69 FR 22882). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–

387 and 50–388, Susquehanna Steam 

Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 

and 2), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendments: 

September 8, 2004. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the SSES 1 and 2 

Technical Specification 3.8.7, 

‘‘Distribution Systems-Operating,’’ to 

add an action note to address the 

potential for deenergized Class 1E 

battery chargers, and correct three 

unrelated editorial changes. 

Date of issuance: August 17, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 225 and 202. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

14 and NPF–22: The amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 24, 2005 (70 FR 29798). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 17, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, 

Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendment: 

October 1, 2004. 

Brief description of amendment: This 

amendment deleted the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) associated with 

hydrogen recombiners, and hydrogen 

and oxygen monitors. 

Date of issuance: August 9, 2005. 

51386 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment No.: 160. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–

57: This amendment revised the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 15, 2005 (70 FR 

12749). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 9, 2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

TXU Generation Company LP, Docket 

Nos. 50–445 and 50–446, Comanche 

Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas 

Date of amendment request: March 

15, 2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise the Technical 

Specification 3.7.10, ‘‘Control Room 

Emergency Filtration/Pressurization 

System (CREFS).’’ The revision allows a 

one-time extension from 24 hours to 14 

days of the allowable duration of 

operation with control room boundary 

inoperable. 

Date of issuance: August 11, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 120, 120. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

87 and NPF–89: The amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 24, 2005 (70 FR 29801). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 11, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses and Final 

Determination of No Significant 

Hazards Consideration and 

Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent 

Public Announcement or Emergency 

Circumstances) 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application for the 

amendment complies with the 

standards and requirements of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s rules 

and regulations. The Commission has 

made appropriate findings as required 

by the Act and the Commission’s rules 

and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, 

which are set forth in the license 

amendment. 

Because of exigent or emergency 

circumstances associated with the date 

the amendment was needed, there was 

not time for the Commission to publish, 

for public comment before issuance, its 

usual Notice of Consideration of 

Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No 

Significant Hazards Consideration 

Determination, and Opportunity for a 

Hearing. 

For exigent circumstances, the 

Commission has either issued a Federal 

Register notice providing opportunity 

for public comment or has used local 

media to provide notice to the public in 

the area surrounding a licensee’s facility 

of the licensee’s application and of the 

Commission’s proposed determination 

of no significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission has provided a 

reasonable opportunity for the public to 

comment, using its best efforts to make 

available to the public means of 

communication for the public to 

respond quickly, and in the case of 

telephone comments, the comments 

have been recorded or transcribed as 

appropriate and the licensee has been 

informed of the public comments. 

In circumstances where failure to act 

in a timely way would have resulted, for 

example, in derating or shutdown of a 

nuclear power plant or in prevention of 

either resumption of operation or of 

increase in power output up to the 

plant’s licensed power level, the 

Commission may not have had an 

opportunity to provide for public 

comment on its no significant hazards 

consideration determination. In such 

case, the license amendment has been 

issued without opportunity for 

comment. If there has been some time 

for public comment but less than 30 

days, the Commission may provide an 

opportunity for public comment. If 

comments have been requested, it is so 

stated. In either event, the State has 

been consulted by telephone whenever 

possible. 

Under its regulations, the Commission 

may issue and make an amendment 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the pendency before it of a request for 

a hearing from any person, in advance 

of the holding and completion of any 

required hearing, where it has 

determined that no significant hazards 

consideration is involved. 

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 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 51387 

1To 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. 

contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 

(800) 397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by email to pdr@nrc.gov. If a request for a 

hearing or petition for leave to intervene 

is filed by the above date, the 

Commission or a presiding officer 

designated by the Commission or by the 

Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions which the petitioner/ 

requestor seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the petitioner/requestor shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to those specific 

sources and documents of which the 

petitioner is aware and on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to establish 

those facts or expert opinion. The 

petition must include sufficient 

information to show that a genuine 

dispute exists with the applicant on a 

material issue of law or fact.1

Contentions shall be limited to matters 

within the scope of the amendment 

under consideration. The contention 

must be one which, if proven, would 

entitle the petitioner to relief. A 

petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy 

these requirements with respect to at 

least one contention will not be 

permitted to participate as a party. 

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, 

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 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). 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego 

County, New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

August 8, 2005, as supplemented 

August 11, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification 3.3.7, ‘‘Containment Spray 

System,’’ specifically, increasing the 

maximum lake water temperature limit 

in specification f. from 81 °F to 83 °F. 

Date of issuance: August 12, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of its 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 5 days. 

Amendment No.: 190. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

63: Amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Public comments requested as to 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration (NSHC): No. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment, finding of emergency 

circumstances, state consultation, and 

final NSHC determination are contained 

in a safety evaluation dated August 12, 

2005. 

Attorney for licensee: Mark J. 

Wetterhahn, Esquire, Winston & Strawn, 

1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20005–3502. 

NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd 

day of August 2005. 

51388 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Ledyard B. Marsh, 

Director, Division of Licensing Project 

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 05–16979 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release Nos. 33–8607; 34–52329, File No. 

265–23] 

Advisory Committee on Smaller Public 

Companies 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Meeting of SEC 

Advisory Committee on Smaller Public 

Companies. 

The Securities and Exchange 

Commission Advisory Committee on 

Smaller Public Companies is providing 

notice that it will hold a public meeting 

on Monday, September 19, and 

Tuesday, September 20, 2005, at the 

Hyatt at Fisherman’s Wharf Hotel, 555 

North Point Street, San Francisco, 

California 94133. The meeting is 

scheduled for 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on 

Monday, September 19, and from 10:15 

a.m. to 3:30 p.m., with a one-hour break 

for lunch from 12:30 to 1:30 p.m., on 

Tuesday, September 20. The meeting 

will be audio webcast on the 

Commission’s Web site at www.sec.gov. 

The agenda for the Monday, 

September 19, session includes hearing 

oral testimony by participating in 

roundtables with participants in the 

SEC Government-Business Forum on 

Small Business Capital Formation. The 

roundtables will focus on the process of 

capital formation for smaller companies 

since the enactment of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002. The agenda for the 

Tuesday, September 20, session 

includes considering written statements 

that have been filed with the Advisory 

Committee in connection with the 

meeting and considering reports of 

subcommittees of the Advisory 

Committee. The Advisory Committee 

will also consider on Tuesday any 

recommendations proposed by Members 

or Official Observers for adoption by the 

full Advisory Committee. 

DATES: Written statements should be 

received on or before September 12, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Written statements may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

Electronic Statements 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

submission form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

info/smallbus/acspc.shtml); or 

• Send an e-mail message to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number 265–23 on the subject line; or 

Paper Statements 

• Send paper statements in triplicate 

to Jonathan G. Katz, Committee 

Management Officer, Securities and 

Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, 

NE., Washington, DC 20549–9303. 

All submissions should refer to File 

No. 265–23. This file number should be 

included on the subject line if e-mail is 

used. To help us process and review 

your statement more efficiently, please 

use only one method. The Commission 

staff will post all statements on the 

Advisory Committee’s Web site (http:// 

www.sec.gov./info/smallbus/ 

acspc.shtml). 

Statements also will be available for 

public inspection and copying in the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549. All statements received will be 

posted without change; we do not edit 

personal identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. 

Persons wishing to provide oral 

testimony at the Monday, September 19, 

session should contact one of the SEC 

staff persons listed below by September 

9, 2005 and submit a written statement 

by the deadline for written statements. 

Sufficient time may not be available to 

accommodate all those wishing to 

provide oral testimony. The Co-Chairs 

of the Advisory Committee have 

reserved the right to select and limit the 

time of witnesses permitted to testify at 

the Advisory Committee meeting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin M. O’Neill, Special Counsel, at 

(202) 551–3260, or William A. Hines, 

Special Counsel, at (202) 551–3320, 

Office of Small Business Policy, 

Division of Corporation Finance, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–3628. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with Section 10(a) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 

U.S.C.-App. 1, § 10(a), and the 

regulations thereunder, Gerald J. 

Laporte, Designated Federal Officer of 

the Committee, has ordered publication 

of this notice. 

Jonathan G. Katz, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–17166 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[[Release No. 35–28019] 

Filings Under the Public Utility Holding 

Company Act of 1935, as Amended 

(‘‘Act’’) 

August 24, 2005. 

Notice is hereby given that the 

following filing(s) has/have been made 

with the Commission pursuant to 

provisions of the Act and rules 

promulgated under the Act. All 

interested persons are referred to the 

application(s) and/or declaration(s) for 

complete statements of the proposed 

transaction(s) summarized below. The 

application(s) and/or declaration(s) and 

any amendment(s) is/are available for 

public inspection through the 

Commission’s Branch of Public 

Reference. 

Interested persons wishing to 

comment or request a hearing on the 

application(s) and/or declaration(s) 

should submit their views in writing by 

September 19, 2005, to the Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

Washington, DC 20549–0609, and serve 

a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/ 

or declarant(s) at the address(es) 

specified below. Proof of service (by 

affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at 

law, by certificate) should be filed with 

the request. Any request for hearing 

should identify specifically the issues of 

facts or law that are disputed. A person 

who so requests will be notified of any 

hearing, if ordered, and will receive a 

copy of any notice or order issued in the 

matter. After September 19, 2005, the 

application(s) and/or declaration(s), as 

filed or as amended, may be granted 

and/or permitted to become effective. 

CenterPoint Energy, Inc., et al. (70–

10329) 

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. 

(‘‘CenterPoint’’), a registered publicutility holding company under the Act, 

located at 1111 Louisiana, Houston, TX 

77002, Utility Holding, LLC (‘‘Utility 

Holding’’), CenterPoint’s direct, wholly 

owned subsidiary limited liability 

company, located at 200 West Ninth 

Street Plaza, Suite 411,Wilmington, DE 

19801, CenterPoint Energy Houston 

Electric, LLC (‘‘CEHouston Electric’’), a 

wholly owned electric utility subsidiary