Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 54085 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY BOARD 

Meeting Notice 

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, 

September 20, 2005. 

PLACE: NTSB Board Room, 429 L’Enfant 

Plaza, S.W., Washington, DC 20594. 

STATUS: The one item is Open to the 

Public. 

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: 

5299R—Most Wanted Safety 

Recommendations Program—2005 

Update on State Issues. 

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202) 

314–6100. 

Individuals requesting specific 

accommodations should contact Ms. 

Carolyn Dargan at (202) 314–6305 by 

Friday, September 16, 2005. 

The public may view the meeting via 

a live or archived webcast by accessing 

a link under ‘‘News & Events’’ on the 

NTSB home page at http:// 

www.ntsb.gov. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicky 

D’Onofrio, (202) 314–6410. 

Dated: September 9, 2005. 

Vicky D’Onofrio, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–18294 Filed 9–9–05; 3:57 am] 

BILLING CODE 7533–01–M 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act; Meetings 

DATE: Weeks of September 12, 19, 26, 

October 3, 10, 17, 2005. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Week of September 12, 2005 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of September 12, 2005. 

Week of September 19, 2005—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of September 19, 2005. 

Week of September 26, 2005—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of September 26, 2005. 

Week of October 3, 2005—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of October 3, 2005. 

Week of October 10, 2005—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of October 10, 2005. 

Week of October 17, 2005—Tentative 

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 

9:30 a.m.—Briefing on 

Decommissioning Activities and 

Status (Public Meeting). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address http://www.nrc.gov. 

*The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. To verify the status of meetings 

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. 

Contact person for more information: 

Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1662. 

* * * * * 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/ 

policy-making/schedule.html. 

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

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 request 

for reasonable accommodation 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: September 8, 2005. 

R. Michelle Schroll, 

Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–18191 Filed 9–9–05; 10:33 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 19, 

2005, to August 31, 2005. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

August 30, 2005 (70 FR 51378). 

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 

54086 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 

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 

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: 

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). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 54087 

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. 

Carolina Power & Light Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324, 

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Brunswick County, North 

Carolina 

Date of amendments request: August 

11, 2005. 

Description of amendments request: 

The proposed change would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) 

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.1.3.9 

with respect to the allowed leakage rate 

through each Main Steam Isolation 

Valve (MSIV). Specifically, the limit is 

revised from an allowable leakage rate 

of less than or equal to 11.5 standard 

cubic feet per hour (scfh) through each 

MSIV to less than or equal to 100 scfh 

through each main steam line (MSL) 

with the combined leakage of the four 

MSLs being less than or equal to 150 

scfh. Also, changes to TS 3.3.7.1, 

‘‘Control Room Emergency Ventilation 

(CREV) System Instrumentation,’’ are 

also included to incorporate new 

automatic initiation functions for the 

CREV system to support the MSIV 

leakage rate change proposal. 

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 not involve a significant increase 

in the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises SR 3.6.1.3.9 

with respect to the allowed leakage rate 

through each MSIV. Specifically, the limit is 

revised from an allowable leakage rate of less 

than or equal to 11.5 scfh per MSIV to less 

than or equal to 100 scfh for any one MSL 

with the combined leakage of the four MSLs 

being less than or equal to 150 scfh. Also, to 

support the MSIV leakage rate change, 

additional automatic initiation functions for 

the CREV system will be implemented. The 

associated changes to TS 3.3.7.1, ‘‘Control 

Room Emergency Ventilation (CREV) System 

Instrumentation,’’ are also made. 

The proposed change to the MSIV leakage 

limit does not involve physical change to any 

plant structure, system, or component. As a 

result, no new failure modes of the MSIVs 

has been introduced. The CREV system 

initiation logic is being modified; however, 

this system performs a mitigating function 

and has no impact on any initiating event 

frequency. Therefore, the proposed changes 

cannot increase in the probability a 

previously evaluated accident. 

A plant-specific radiological analysis has 

been performed to assess the effects of the 

proposed increase in MSIV leakage 

acceptance criteria in terms of offsite doses 

and control room doses. The analysis shows 

the dose contribution from the proposed 

increase in leakage acceptance criteria is 

acceptable compared to dose limits 

prescribed in 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(i) for the 

exclusion area, 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(ii) for the 

low population zone, and 10 CFR 

50.67(b)(2)(iii) for control room personnel. 

The CREV system initiation logic 

modification will result in automatic 

initiation of the CREV system based on 

signals from the secondary containment 

isolation logic as an input to each division 

of the CREV control logic. This change is 

made to ensure that doses to control room 

personnel remain within the requirements of 

10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(iii) in the event of a lossof-coolant-accident [LOCA]. 

2. Does not create the possibility of a new 

or different type of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the MSIV leakage 

limit will not adversely impact MSIV 

functionality and will not create a failure of 

the MSIVs of a different kind than previously 

considered. The CREV system initiation logic 

is being modified to initiate automatically 

using signals from the secondary 

containment isolation logic. This provides 

redundant/diverse protection for control 

room operators in the event of a LOCA. The 

required logic modifications will be 

performed such that faults originating in the 

CREV logic cannot affect either the secondary 

containment isolation logic or the functions 

which initiate secondary containment 

isolation. 

3. Does not involve a significant reduction 

in the margin of safety. 

Response: No. 

The allowable leak rate specified for the 

MSIVs is used to quantify a maximum 

amount of leakage assumed to bypass 

containment. The results of the re-analysis 

supporting these changes were evaluated 

against the dose limits contained in 10 CFR 

50.67(b)(2)(i) for the exclusion area, 10 CFR 

50.67(b)(2)(ii) for the low population zone, 

and 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(iii) for control room 

personnel. Sufficient margin relative to the 

regulatory limits is maintained even when 

conservative assumptions and methods are 

utilized. The CREV system initiation logic is 

being modified to initiate automatically using 

signals from the secondary containment 

isolation logic. This provides redundant/ 

diverse protection for control room operators 

in the event of a LOCA. 

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: David T. 

Conley, Associate General Counsel II—

Legal Department, Progress Energy 

Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 

1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. 

NRC Section Chief: Michael L. 

Marshall, Jr. 

Carolina Power & Light Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324, 

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Brunswick County, North 

Carolina 

Date of amendments request: August 

11, 2005. 

Description of amendments request: 

The proposed change would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.12, 

‘‘Primary Containment Leakage Rate 

Testing Program,’’ by removing an 

exception that allows for compensation 

of flow meter instrument inaccuracies in 

accordance with ANSI [American 

National Standards Institute]/ANS 

[American Nuclear Society]–56.8–1987 

rather than meeting the instrument 

accuracy requirements in ANSI/ANS–

56.8–1994. The exception is no longer 

necessary due to the availability of test 

instruments capable of satisfying the 

instrument accuracy requirements of 

ANSI/ANS–56.8–1994. 

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: 

This request has been evaluated 

against the standards in 10 CFR 50.92, 

and has been determined to not involve 

a significant hazards consideration. In 

support of this conclusion, the 

following analysis is provided: 

1. Does not involve a significant increase 

in the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

The proposed removal, from Technical 

Specification 5.5.12, of an exception that 

allows for compensation of instrumentation 

inaccuracies in accordance with ANSI/ANS–

56.8–1987, rather than ANSI/ANS–56.8–

1994, does not involve physical changes to 

any plant structure, system, or component. 

Furthermore, removal of the exception 

allowing for the accounting for containment 

leakage rate test instrumentation accuracy 

using ANSI/ANS–56.8–1987 has no impact 

on the initiating frequency for any previously 

evaluated accident. Therefore, the proposed 

change cannot increase the probability of a 

previously evaluated accident. 

54088 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 

The consequences of a previously 

evaluated accident are dependent on the 

initial conditions assumed for the analysis, 

the behavior of the fuel during the analyzed 

accident, the availability and successful 

functioning of the equipment assumed to 

operate in response to the evaluated event, 

and the setpoints at which these actions are 

initiated. Use of leakage rate test instruments 

that meet the accuracy provisions of ANSI/ 

ANS–56.8–1994 complies with NEI [Nuclear 

Energy Institute] 94–01, Revision 0, 

‘‘Industry Guideline for Implementing 

Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR 50 

Appendix J,’’ and Regulatory Guide 1.163, 

‘‘Performance-Based Containment Leak—Test 

Program,’’ September 1995, and ensures that 

measured containment leakage rates are 

maintained within specified limits. 

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? 

Creation of the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident would require the 

creation of one or more new precursors to 

that accident. New accident precursors may 

be created by modifications of the plant 

configuration, including changes in 

allowable modes of operation. The proposed 

change regarding containment leakage test 

instrument accuracy does not involve 

installation of any new or different 

equipment. No installed equipment is being 

operated in a different manner than currently 

evaluated. No new initiating events or 

transients will result from the use of more 

accurate containment leakage test 

instruments. Therefore, the proposed change 

does not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does not involve a significant reduction 

in the margin of safety. 

The proposed removal, from Technical 

Specification 5.5.12, of an exception that 

allows for compensation of instrumentation 

inaccuracies in accordance with ANSI/ANS–

56.8–1987 rather than ANSI/ANS–56.8–1994 

does not alter the assumptions of the 

accident analyses or the Technical 

Specification Bases. The margin of safety is 

established through the design of the plant 

structures, systems, and components; 

through the parameters within which the 

plant is operated; through the establishment 

of setpoints for actuation of equipment relied 

upon to respond to an event; and through 

margins contained within the safety analyses. 

The use of industry standard ANSI/ANS–

56.8–1994, rather than ANSI/ANS–56.8–

1987, in accounting for the accuracy of 

containment leakage rate testing 

instrumentation will not adversely impact 

the performance of plant structures, systems, 

components, and setpoints relied upon to 

respond to mitigate an accident or transient. 

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: David T. 

Conley, Associate General Counsel II—

Legal Department, Progress Energy 

Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 

1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. 

NRC Section Chief: Michael L. 

Marshall, Jr. 

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 amendment request: June 27, 

2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

change the SSES 1 and 2 technical 

specifications for reactor protection 

system and control rod block 

instrumentation, oscillation power 

range monitor (OPRM) instrumentation, 

recirculation loops operating, shutdown 

margin test—refueling, and the core 

operating limits report. The proposed 

changes involve the modification of the 

existing power range neutron monitor 

system (PRNM) by installation of the 

General Electric Nuclear Measurement 

Analysis and Control PRNM system. 

The modification of the PRNM system 

would replace analog technology with a 

more reliable digital upgrade. 

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 probability (frequency of occurrence) 

of DBAs [design-basis accidents] occurring is 

not affected by the PRNM system, as the 

PRNM system does not interact with 

equipment whose failure could cause an 

accident. Compliance with the regulatory 

criteria established for plant equipment will 

be maintained with the installation of the 

upgraded PRNM system. Scram setpoints in 

the PRNM system will be established so that 

all analytical limits are met. 

The unavailability of the new system will 

be equal to or less than the existing system 

and, as a result, the scram reliability will be 

equal to or better than the existing system. 

No new challenges to safety-related 

equipment will result from the PRNM system 

modification. Therefore, the proposed change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change will replace the 

currently installed and NRC approved OPRM 

Option III long-term stability solution with 

an NRC approved Option III long-term 

stability solution digitally integrated into the 

PRNM equipment. The PRNM hardware 

incorporates the OPRM Option III detect and 

suppress solution reviewed and approved by 

the NRC in the References 1, 2, 3 and 4 

Licensing Topical Reports, the same as the 

currently installed separate OPRM system. 

The OPRM meets the GDC [general design 

criterion] 10, ‘‘Reactor Design,’’ and 12, 

‘‘Suppression of Reactor Power Oscillations,’’

requirements by automatically detecting and 

suppressing design basis thermal-hydraulic 

oscillations prior to exceeding the fuel MCPR 

[minimum critical power ratio] Safety Limit. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

Based on the above, the operation of the 

new PRNM system and replacement of the 

currently installed OPRM Option III stability 

solution with the Option III OPRM function 

integrated into the PRNM equipment will not 

increase 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 components of the PRNM system will 

be supplied to equivalent or better design 

and qualification criteria than is currently 

required for the plant. 

Equipment that could be affected by PRNM 

system has been evaluated. No new operating 

mode, safety-related equipment lineup, 

accident scenario, or system interaction 

mode was identified. Therefore, the upgraded 

PRNM system will not adversely affect plant 

equipment. 

The new PRNM system uses digital 

equipment that has ‘‘control’’ processing 

points and software controlled digital 

processing compared to the existing PRNM 

system that uses mostly analog and discrete 

component processing (excluding the 

existing OPRM). Specific failures of hardware 

and potential software common cause 

failures are different from the existing 

system. The effects of potential software 

common cause failure are mitigated by 

specific hardware design and system 

architecture. Failure(s) on the system has the 

same overall effect. No new or different kind 

of accident is introduced. 

Therefore, the PRNM system will not 

adversely effect plant equipment. 

The current OPRM Option III plant design 

is replaced with an OPRM function digitally 

integrated into the PRNM. The currently 

installed Power Range Monitor system is 

replaced with a PRNM system that performs 

all of the existing PRNM functions plus 

OPRM. Failure of neither the APRM [average 

power range monitor] nor OPRM functions in 

the replacement system can cause an 

accident of a kind not previously evaluated 

in the SAR [safety analysis report]. 

Based on the above, the proposed change 

will not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 54089 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The upgraded PRNM system will not 

involve a reduction in a margin of safety, as 

loads on plant equipment will not increase, 

and reactions to, or results of transients and 

hypothetical accidents, will not increase 

from those presently evaluated. 

No change has been made to the Analytical 

Limits or Technical Specification Allowable 

Values. The present system characteristics 

such as drift, calibration setpoint, and 

accuracy envelop the new system 

requirements. 

The upgraded PRNM system response time 

and operator information is either 

maintained or improved over the current 

Power Range Neutron Monitor system. The 

upgraded PRNM system has improved 

channel trip accuracy compared to the 

current system. 

The current safety analyses demonstrate 

that the existing OPRM Option III related 

Technical Specification requirements are 

adequate to detect and suppress an instability 

event. There is no impact on the MCPR 

Safety Limit identified for an instability 

event. The replacement OPRM system 

integrated into the new PRNM equipment 

implements the same functions per the same 

requirements as the currently installed 

system and has equivalent Technical 

Specification requirements. Therefore, the 

margin of safety associated with the MCPR 

Safety Limit is still maintained. 

Based on the above, the proposed change 

will 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: Bryan A. Snapp, 

Esquire, Assoc. General Counsel, PPL 

Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., 

GENTW3, Allentown, PA 18101–1179. 

NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer. 

Southern California Edison Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, 

Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, 

California 

Date of amendment requests: July 15, 

2005. 

Description of amendment requests: 

The amendments are for the San Onofre 

Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), 

Units 2 and 3, operating licenses, but 

they will involve Unit 1, which is not 

an operating nuclear plant and is in the 

process of being decommissioned. The 

amendments would revise License 

Condition 2.B.(6) for both SONGS, Units 

2 and 3 by (1) deleting the sentence 

‘‘Transhipment of Unit 1 fuel between 

Units 1 and [2 or 3] shall be in 

accordance with SCE [Southern 

California Edison] letters to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

* * * and in accordance with the 

Quality Assurance requirements of 10 

CFR Part 71’’ and (2) adding the phrase 

‘‘and by the decommissioning of San 

Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 

1’’ to the remaining sentence in the 

license condition. This change would 

recognize that Unit 1 is now in the stage 

of decommissioning and that in the 

future any radioactive waste water 

produced in the further 

decommissioning of Unit 1 would be 

released from the San Onofre site by 

transferring the waste water from Unit 1 

to Units 2 and 3. The processing (if 

required) and discharging of this waste 

water would be using the Units 2 and 

3 radioactive waste system and ocean 

outfall discharge 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 any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. The proposed change does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of any accident 

previously evaluated because there is no 

increase in the total San Onofre Nuclear 

Generating Station (SONGS) Unit 1 

radioactive wastewater created by this 

change. 

The yard drain sump and all 

interconnecting piping will be entirely 

within the SONGS owner-controlled area. 

The new design will have more above ground 

piping, which presents an increase in [pipe] 

break probability. However, the system 

design complies with guidelines provided in 

NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] 

Regulatory Guide 1.26 for nuclear service and 

with American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) B31.1. Failure of the above ground 

piping is bounded by the Postulated 

Radioactive Releases Due to Liquid Tank 

failures, as described in the Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Safety 

Analyses. 

The proposed change will allow 

wastewater produced and currently being 

discharged at Unit 1[, using approved 

programs and procedures as allowed by the 

SONGS Unit 1 license,] to be discharged 

through the SONGS [Unit] 2 or 3 ocean 

outfall using the established systems, 

programs, and procedures [as allowed by the 

SONGS, Units 2 and 3 licenses]. [Unit 1 is 

not operating and is in the process of being 

decommissioned.] There will be no increase 

in the total radioactivity or quantity of 

wastewater released from the site as a result 

of the change. The existing SONGS[, Units] 

2 and 3 radioactive effluent control program 

as required by Technical Specification 5.5.2.3 

will still be met. 

Therefore, the probability or consequences 

of any accident previously evaluated [for 

Units 2 and 3] is not [significantly] increased. 

(2) Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated? 

Response: No. The transfer of the SONGS 

Unit 1 sump discharge to the SONGS [Unit] 

2 or 3 outfall does not create a new or 

different kind of accident. Within SONGS[, 

Unit] 2 and 3, the new piping will be 

constructed and supported consistent with 

the mechanical design standards for 

radioactive service water piping. These 

standards ensure design adequacy for 

intended function and service. The pipe 

routing is away from any plant system 

credited for either Unit’s safe shutdown, so 

a pipe rupture cannot impact the safe 

operation of SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3. The 

yard areas are already analyzed for 

postulated radioactive pipe rupture from the 

SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3 radwaste discharge 

piping. The addition of the Unit 1 yard sump 

pipeline that traverses SONGS[, Units] 2 and 

3 does not create a new or different kind of 

accident. 

Therefore, the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

previously evaluated is not created [for Units 

2 and 3]. 

(3) Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. The proposed change will 

allow radioactive or potentially radioactive 

waste water produced and currently being 

discharged at Unit 1 using approved 

programs and procedures as allowed by the 

SONGS Unit 1 license, to be discharged 

through the SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3 ocean 

outfalls using the approved programs and 

procedures as allowed by the SONGS[, Units] 

2 and 3 licenses. A pipe rupture at SONGS[, 

Units] 2 and 3 will not significantly reduce 

the margin of safety. Any water from a 

rupture in this pipe will be collected and 

diverted to the yard drains, where it will mix 

with the SONGS [Unit] 2 or 3 outfalls. 

The discharge of the waste water from Unit 

1 through either Unit 2 or 3 outfall will be 

performed in accordance with existing 

programs and procedures. In addition, the 

radiation monitor and its interlocks will be 

used to control the release from the yard 

drain sump. The concentration at the outfall 

will be below the regulatory limits in 10 CFR 

20 Appendix B. The requirements of the 

radioactive effluent control program as 

required by Technical Specification 5.5.2.3 

will continue to be met. 

Therefore, a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety is not involved [for Units 2 

and 3]. 

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 requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. 

Porter, Esquire, Southern California 

54090 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 

Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove 

Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770 

NRC Section Chief: Daniel S. Collins, 

Acting. 

Previously Published Notices of 

Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The following notices were previously 

published as separate individual 

notices. The notice content was the 

same as above. They were published as 

individual notices either because time 

did not allow the Commission to wait 

for this biweekly notice or because the 

action involved exigent circumstances. 

They are repeated here because the 

biweekly notice lists all amendments 

issued or proposed to be issued 

involving no significant hazards 

consideration. 

For details, see the individual notice 

in the Federal Register on the day and 

page cited. This notice does not extend 

the notice period of the original notice. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., et al., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–

425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: August 

12, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendments 

would revise the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, 

Technical Specifications (TS) 5.5.9, 

‘‘Steam Generator (SG) Tube 

Surveillance Program,’’ on a one-time 

basis, to incorporate changes in the SG 

inspection scope fro VEGP, Unit 2 

during Refueling Outage 11 and the 

subsequent operating cycle. The 

proposed changes are applicable to Unit 

2 only for inspections during Refueling 

Outage 11 and for the subsequent 

operating cycle. The proposed changes 

modify the inspection requirements for 

portions of SG tubes within the hot leg 

tubesheet region of the SGs. The license 

for VEGP, Unit 1 is affected only due to 

the fact that Units 1 and 2 use common 

TSs. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: August 22, 

2005 (70 FR 48985). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

September 21, 2005. 

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for A Hearing in 

connection with these actions was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

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

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items are available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

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

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

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209, 

(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

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: 

February 14, 2005, as supplemented by 

letter dated July 13, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the surveillance 

requirements (SR) for the station 

batteries as specified in SR 3.8.4.5, 

battery service test, and SR 3.8.4.6, 

battery performance test in TS 3.8.4, DC 

Sources—Operating. 

Date of issuance: August 25, 2005. 

Effective date: August 25, 2005. 

Amendment No.: 206. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–23: Amendment revises the 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 24, 2005 (70 FR 29787). 

The Commission’s related evaluation of 

the amendment is contained in a Safety 

Evaluation dated August 25, 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: 

January 19, 2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications 5.6.7.b, ‘‘Core Operating 

Limits Report (COLR),’’ to add the 

topical report DPC–NE–1005P–A, ‘‘Duke 

Power Nuclear Design Methodology 

Using CASMO–4/SIMULATE–3 MOX.’’

This report has been previously 

approved by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Date of issuance: August 23, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 230 and 212. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 1, 2005 (70 FR 9990). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 23, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy 

Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458, 

River Bend Station, Unit 1, West 

Feliciana Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: 

September 23, 2004, as supplemented 

by letter dated April 19, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the Technical 

Specifications to allow revision of 

reactor operational limits, as specified 

in the River Bend Station Core 

Operating Limits Report, to compensate 

for the inoperability of the End of Cycle 

Recirculation Pump Trip 

Instrumentation. 

Date of issuance: August 25, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 60 

days from the date of issuance. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 54091 

Amendment No.: 146. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–

47: The amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24650). 

The supplement dated April 19, 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 25, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear 

Power Station, Plymouth County, 

Massachusetts 

Date of application for amendment: 

December 14, 2004. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment changed Technical 

Specifications (TSs) to reflect 

surveillance frequency improvements. 

Specifically, the amendment removed 

the additional requirement to perform 

functional testing of the average power 

range monitor (APRM) and anticipated 

transient without scram recirculation 

pump trip alternate rod insertion 

instrumentation on each startup, when 

the nominally-required quarterly testing 

is current. Additionally, performance of 

the APRM High Flux heat balance 

calibration was modified to apply only 

after 12 hours at > 25% power. 

Additional editorial clarifications 

related to TS Tables 4.2.A through 

4.2.G, Note 2 and associated Table 

references were also included. 

Date of issuance: August 29, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 217. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

35: The amendment revised the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 1, 2005 (70 FR 9991). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 29, 

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: 

October 5, 2004, as supplemented on 

April 22, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 6.7.C ‘‘Primary 

Containment Leak Rate Testing 

Program,’’ to allow a one-time extension 

to the 10-year interval for performing 

the next Type A containment integrated 

leak rate test (ILRT). Specifically, the 

change would allow the test to be 

performed within 15 years from the last 

ILRT which was performed in April 

1995. 

Date of Issuance: August 31, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 227. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

28: The amendment revised the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 21, 2004 (69 FR 

76492). 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 31, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 

and 3, Grundy County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendments: 

January 21, 2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modify the Isolation 

Condenser System heat removal 

capability surveillance requirement (SR) 

by adding a note to the technical 

specification section SR 3.5.3.4. This 

note allows a delay of 12 hours after 

adequate reactor power is achieved to 

perform the test. 

Date of issuance: August 25, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 215,207. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

19 and DPR–25: The amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 24, 2005. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 25, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendments: 

May 20, 2004, as supplemented by 

letters dated February 18 and July 13, 

2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Limerick 

Generating Station Units 1 and 2 

Technical Specifications (TSs) 2.2.1, 

‘‘Reactor Protection System 

Instrumentation Setpoints,’’ TS 3/4.3.1, 

‘‘Reactor Protection System 

Instrumentation,’’ TS 3/4.3.6, ‘‘Control 

Rod Block Instrumentation,’’ TS 3/4.4.1, 

‘‘Recirculation System,’’ and TS 6.9.1, 

‘‘Routine Reports,’’ and the associated 

TS Bases. The amendments support 

activation of the trip outputs of the 

oscillation power range monitor portion 

of the power range neutron monitoring 

system. 

Date of issuance: August 26, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 177 and 139. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

39 and NPF–85. The amendments 

revised the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 26, 2004 (69 FR 

62474). The supplements dated 

February 18 and July 13, 2005, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 26, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 

South Carolina Public Service 

Authority, Docket No. 50–395, Virgil C. 

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, 

Fairfield County, South Carolina 

Date of application for amendment: 

August 24, 2004, as supplemented 

August 10, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: This 

amendment revises Technical 

Specifications (TSs) related to the 

surveillance requirements for the 

emergency feedwater system. 

Date of issuance: August 16, 2005. 

54092 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 173. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–12: Amendment revises the 

TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 12, 2004 (69 FR 

60685). 

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. 

Southern California Edison Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, 

Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, 

California 

Date of application for amendments: 

June 30, 2004, as supplemented by 

letters dated December 2, 2004, May 27, 

2005, and July 18, 2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

proposed changes revise Technical 

Specification 5.5.2.15, ‘‘Containment 

Leakage Rate Testing Program,’’ to 

include a one-time extension of the 10- 

year period of the performance-based 

leakage rate testing program for Type A 

tests as prescribed by the Nuclear 

Energy Institute (NEI) 94–01, Revision 0, 

‘‘Industry Guideline for Implementing 

Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR 

part 50, Appendix J.’’

Date of issuance: August 24, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 198 and 189. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

10 and NPF–15: The amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 3, 2004 (69 FR 46589). 

The supplemental letters dated 

December 2, 2004, May 27, and July 18, 

2005, provided 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 amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 24, 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 54093 

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. 

issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license and 

any person whose interest may be 

affected by this proceeding and who 

wishes to participate as a party in the 

proceeding must file a written request 

for a hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 

petition for leave to intervene shall be 

filed in accordance with the 

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for 

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 

CFR part 2. Interested persons should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 

and electronically on the Internet at the 

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

reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there 

are problems in accessing the document, 

contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 

(800) 397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by 

e-mail to 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 

e-mail 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). 

Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 

50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, Oconee 

Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, 

Oconee County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: August 

21, 2005, as supplemented August 22, 

2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments revise Technical 

Specification Limiting Condition for 

Operation 3.8.1, Condition C.2.1, to 

permit a one-time extension of 96 hours 

of the Completion Times for Keowee 

Hydro Unit 2. 

Date of issuance: August 23, 2005. 

Effective date: August 23, 2005. 

54094 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 

Amendment Nos.: 347, 349, and 348. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

38, DPR–47, and DPR–55: Amendments 

revises 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 23, 

2005. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day 

of September, 2005. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Ledyard B. Marsh, 

Director, Division of Licensing Project 

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 05–17888 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request for Clearance of a Revised 

Information Collection: Declaration for 

Federal Employment; Optional Form 

306, OMB No. 3206–0182 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–13, May 22, 1995), this 

notice announces that the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) intends 

to submit a request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review of a revised information 

collection. The Optional Form (OF) 306, 

Declaration for Federal Employment, is 

completed by applicants who are under 

consideration for Federal or Federal 

contract employment. 

The OF 306 requests that the 

applicant provide personal identifying 

data, including, for example, general 

background information, information 

concerning retirement pay received or 

requested and information on Selective 

Service registration and military service. 

The revision is to make needed 

administrative updates. 

It is estimated that 474,000 

individuals will respond annually. Each 

form takes approximately 15 minutes to 

complete. The annual estimated burden 

is 118,500 hours. 

Comments are particularly invited on: 

• Whether this collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of functions of OPM and 

its Center for Federal Investigative 

Services, which administers background 

investigations; 

• Whether our estimate of the public 

burden of this collection is accurate and 

based on valid assumptions and 

methodology; 

• Ways in which we can minimize 

the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to 

respond, through use of the appropriate 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology; 

• Ways in which we can enhance the 

quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected. 

For copies of this proposal, contact 

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey, OPM Forms 

Officer, at (202) 606–8358, FAX (202) 

418–3251 or mbtoomey@opm.gov. 

Please include your mailing address 

with your request. 

DATES: Comments on this proposal 

should be received within 60 calendar 

days from the date of this publication. 

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments 

to: Kathy Dillaman, Deputy Associate 

Director, Center for Federal Investigative 

Services, U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 

5416, Washington, DC 20415. 

For information regarding 

administrative coordination contact: 

Mary-Kay Brewer—Program Analyst, 

Standards and Evaluation Group, Center 

for Federal Investigative Services, U.S. 

Office of Personnel Management, (202) 

606–1042. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

Linda M. Springer, 

Director. 

[FR Doc. 05–18140 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–38–P 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

Sumission for OMB Review; Comment 

Request for Reclearance of a Revised 

Information Collection: SF 3102 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 

L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice 

announces that the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) has submitted to 

the Office of Management and Budget a 

request for reclearance of a revised 

information collection. SF 3102, 

Designation of Beneficiary (FERS), is 

used by an employee or an annuitant 

covered under the Federal Employees 

Retirement System to designate a 

beneficiary to receive any lump sum 

due in the event of his/her death. 

Approximately 2,893 SF 3102 forms 

are completed annually. Each form takes 

approximately 15 minutes to complete. 

The annual estimated burden is 723 

hours. 

For copies of this proposal, contact 

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606–

8358, FAX (202) 418–3251 or via e-mail 

to mbtoomey@opm.gov. Please include a 

mailing address with your request. 

DATES: Comments on this proposal 

should be received within 30 calendar 

days from the date of this publication. 

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments 

to—

Pamela S. Israel, Chief, Operations 

Support Group, Retirement Services 

Programs, U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management, 1900 E Street, NW., 

Room 3349, Washington, DC 20415; 

and 

Brenda Aguilar, OPM Desk Officer, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, New Executive Office 

Building, NW., Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503. 

For Information Regarding 

Administrative Coordination—Contact: 

Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, 

Publications Team, RIS Support 

Services/Support Group, (202) 606–

0623. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

Linda M. Springer, 

Director. 

[FR Doc. 05–18141 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–38–P 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request for Reclearance of 

an Information Collection: RI 25–49 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 

L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice 

announces that the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) has submitted to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) a request for reclearance of an 

information collection. RI 25–49, 

Verification of Full-Time School 

Attendance, is used to verify that adult 

student annuitants are entitled to 

payments. OPM must confirm that a 

full-time enrollment has been 

maintained. 

Approximately 10,000 RI 25–49 forms 

are completed annually. The form takes 

approximately 60 minutes to complete.