Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Notices 56499 

NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, 

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

301–415–2100, or by e-mail at 

ask@nrc.gov. Determinations on 

requests 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 22, 2005. 

Debra L. McCain, 

Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–19321 Filed 9–23–05; 9:52 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 September 

1, 2005, to September 15, 2005. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

September 13, 2005 (70 FR 54085). 

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 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of 

requests for a hearing and petitions for 

leave to intervene is discussed below. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, the licensee 

may file a request for a hearing with 

respect to issuance of the amendment to 

the subject facility operating license and 

any person whose interest may be 

affected by this proceeding and who 

wishes to participate as a party in the 

proceeding must file a written request 

for a hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 

petition for leave to intervene shall be 

filed in accordance with the 

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for 

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 

CFR part 2. Interested persons should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, 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 

56500 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Notices 

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). 

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 email to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

Duke Energy Corporation, et al., Docket 

Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York 

County, South Carolina; Docket Nos. 

50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, Oconee 

Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, 

Oconee County, South Carolina; Docket 

Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: August 5, 

2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments request NRC 

consent to the indirect transfer of 

control of the licenses for the Oconee 

Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, the 

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

and the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 

1 and 2. The transfers of control will 

result from the creation of a new 

holding company that will become the 

parent of the current licensee. The new 

holding company, to be named Duke 

Energy Corporation, that will result 

from the business combination of Duke 

Energy with Cinergy Corporation 

(Cinergy). The licensee, current Duke 

Energy, will convert to a limited 

liability company (LLC) and be renamed Duke Power Company LLC 

(Duke Power). 

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. The Conforming Amendments Do Not 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The amendments do not involve any 

change in the design, configuration, or 

operation of the nuclear units. All Limiting 

Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety 

System Settings and Safety Limits specified 

in the Technical Specifications remain 

unchanged. Also, the Physical Security Plans 

and related plans, the Operator Training and 

Requalification Programs, the Quality 

Assurance Programs, and the Emergency 

Plans will not be materially changed by the 

proposed license transfers and amendments. 

The technical qualifications of the 

operating licensee will not be reduced. 

Personnel engaged in operation, 

maintenance, engineering, assessment, 

training, and other related services will not 

be changed. The Duke Energy officers and 

executives currently responsible for the 

overall safe operation of the nuclear plants 

are expected to continue in the same 

capacity. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Notices 56501 

2. The Conforming Amendments Do Not 

Create the Possibility of a New or Different 

kind of Accident From Any Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The amendments do not involve any 

change in the design, configuration, or 

operation of the nuclear plant. The current 

plant design and design bases will remain the 

same. The current plant safety analyses, 

therefore, remain complete and accurate in 

addressing the design basis events and in 

analyzing plant response and consequences. 

The Limiting Conditions for Operations, 

Limit Safety System Settings and Safety 

Limits specified in the Technical 

Specifications are not affected by the 

proposed changes. As such, the plant 

conditions for which the design basis 

accident analyses were performed remain 

valid. 

The amendments do not introduce a new 

mode of plant operation or new accident 

precursors, do not involve any physical 

alterations to plant configurations, or make 

changes to system set points that could 

initiate a new or different kind of accident. 

3. The Conforming Amendments Do Not 

Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin 

of Safety 

The amendments do not involve a change 

in the design, configuration, or operation of 

the nuclear plants. The change does not 

affect either the way in which the plant 

structures, systems, and components perform 

their safety function or their design and 

licensing bases. 

Plant safety margins are established 

through Limiting Conditions for Operation, 

Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety 

Limits specified in the Technical 

Specifications. Because there is no change to 

the physical design of the plant, there is no 

change to any of these margins. 

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: Ms. Lisa F. 

Vaughn, Legal Department (PB05E), 

Duke Energy Corporation, 422 South 

Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 

28201–1006. 

NRC Section Chief: Evangelos C. 

Marinos. 

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, 

Columbia Generating Station, Benton 

County, Washington 

Date of amendment request: August 

17, 2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would allow 

a one-time extension of the 72-hour 

Completion Time for the Required 

Action of Condition B of Technical 

Specification 3.7.1, ‘‘Standby Service 

Water (SW) System and Ultimate Heat 

Sink (UHS),’’ and a one-time exemption 

from Note 1 of part B.1 of this Required 

Action. Specifically, the proposed onetime extension request is for an 

additional 72 hours to the Completion 

Time and would result in a 144-hour 

Completion Time for an inoperable SW 

subsystem. This would allow extensive 

maintenance to be conducted on the SW 

train B pump, not capable of being 

completed in the current 72-hour 

Completion Time. 

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. The proposed change does not involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

Response: No. 

Since only one subsystem of SW 

components is affected by the condition and 

an additional failure is not considered while 

a plant is in a Limiting Condition for 

Operation (LCO) Action, the operable SW 

subsystem is adequate to maintain 

compliance with the plant’s design basis. 

Thus, this condition will not alter 

assumptions relative to the mitigation of an 

accident or transient event. 

Energy Northwest has determined that 

there is no significant risk associated with 

the operation of the plant for an additional 

3 days with one SW subsystem out of service. 

The incremental change in risk has been 

quantitatively evaluated using the guidance 

of Regulatory Guide [RG] 1.174 and 1.177. 

The incremental risk values are within the 

criteria of Region III (where the increase in 

risk is considered ‘‘very small’’) as 

established in RG 1.174. 

Based on this evaluation, there is no 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequence of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. The proposed change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

Response: No. 

This proposed action only extends the CT 

[Completion Time] and will not physically 

alter the plant. No new or different type of 

equipment will be installed by this action. 

The changes in methods governing normal 

plant operation are consistent with current 

safety analysis assumptions. No change to the 

system as evaluated in the Columbia 

Generating Station safety analysis is 

proposed. Therefore, this proposed change 

does not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. The proposed change does not involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

Response: No. 

Columbia is designed with sufficient 

redundancy such that a SW subsystem may 

be removed from service for maintenance or 

testing. The remaining subsystem is capable 

of providing water and removing heat loads 

to satisfy the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report] requirements for accident 

mitigation or unit safe shutdown. 

A risk-informed evaluation concluded that 

the risk contribution of the CT extension is 

non-risk significant. 

There will be no change to the manner in 

which safety limits or limiting safety system 

settings are determined nor will there be any 

change to those plant systems necessary to 

assure the accomplishment of protection 

functions. For these reasons, the proposed 

amendment does not involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety. 

Based upon the analysis provided herein, 

the proposed amendments do not involve a 

significant hazards consideration. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Thomas C. 

Poindexter, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 

1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20005–3502. 

NRC Section Chief: Daniel S. Collins, 

Acting. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

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

Ottawa County, Ohio 

Date of amendment request: 

July 27, 2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would revise 

technical specification (TS) 3/4.8.1.1, 

‘‘A. C. Sources—Operating,’’ to adopt a 

more recent standard for diesel fuel oil 

testing and remove the restriction that 

certain surveillance requirements be 

performed during shutdown. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to TS SR 

[surveillance requirement] 4.8.1.1.2.b affects 

the testing standard for the fuel oil supply for 

the emergency diesel generators (EDGs). The 

fuel oil supply is not an initiator of any 

accident previously evaluated. The fuel oil 

supply supports the accident mitigation 

functions of the EDGs, which serve as the 

standby source for A.C. power in the event 

of a loss of offsite power. Adoption of a more 

recent standard does not affect the capability 

of the diesel fuel oil to perform its required 

function. Therefore, the proposed change to 

56502 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Notices 

SR 4.8.1.1.2.b does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated. 

The proposed change to TS SR 4.8.1.1.2.d 

affects the performance of load rejection 

testing and the 60-minute loaded run at 

greater than or equal to 2000 kW. Evaluations 

and operating history have demonstrated that 

performance of these tests online will not 

impact electrical distribution system 

reliability. No anticipated operational 

occurrence or accident would occur as a 

result of performing these tests online. 

Although the EDGs are rendered inoperable 

and unavailable during performance of these 

tests, these tests would be performed in 

conjunction with testing required by other 

specifications; therefore, the accumulated 

time of EDG inoperability and unavailability 

would not increase. The proposed change to 

SR 4.8.1.1.2.d 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 to TS SR 4.8.1.1.2.b 

affects the testing standard for the fuel oil 

supply for EDGs. Applying the more recent 

standard for fuel oil testing does not create 

any new or different accident initiators 

because adoption of a more recent standard 

does not affect the capability of the diesel 

fuel oil to perform its required function. 

The proposed change to TS SR 4.8.1.1.2.d 

affects the performance of load rejection 

testing and the 60-minute loaded run at 

greater than or equal to 2000 kW. Evaluations 

and operating experience have demonstrated 

that performance of these tests online will 

not impact electrical distribution system 

reliability. No new or different accidents 

could occur as a result of performing these 

tests online. Therefore, the proposed change 

does not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to TS SR 4.8.1.1.2.b 

affects the testing standard for the fuel oil 

supply for EDGs. Adoption of a more recent 

standard does not affect the capability of the 

diesel fuel oil to perform its required 

function. 

The proposed change to TS SR 4.8.1.1.2.d 

affects the performance of load rejection 

testing and the 60-minute loaded run at 

greater than or equal to 2000 kW. Evaluations 

and operating experience have demonstrated 

that performance of these tests online 

regardless of the test outcome will not impact 

electrical distribution system reliability. The 

required testing will continue to demonstrate 

acceptable EDG performance. 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: Mary E. 

O’Reilly, Attorney, FirstEnergy 

Corporation, 76 South Main Street, 

Akron, OH 44308. 

NRC Section Chief: Gene Y. Suh. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

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

Ottawa County, Ohio 

Date of amendment request: July 27, 

2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would revise 

technical specification (TS) 3/4.10.2, 

‘‘Special Test Exceptions—Physics 

Tests,’’ to increase the allowed time 

between the flux channel Channel 

Functional Tests and the beginning of 

Mode 2 Physics Tests from 12 hours to 

24 hours. 

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 changes affect the Limiting Condition 

for Operation for ‘‘Special Test Exceptions—

Physics Tests,’’ in particular, the neutron flux 

instrumentation CHANNEL FUNCTIONAL 

TEST that must precede PHYSICS TESTING 

in MODE 2. The neutron flux 

instrumentation is not an accident initiator, 

but is credited for two events. These events 

are Uncontrolled Control Rod Assembly 

Group Withdrawal From a Subcritical 

Condition (Startup Accident), and 

Uncontrolled Control Rod Assembly Group 

Withdrawal at Power. The proposed change 

will not impact the operation of the neutron 

flux instrumentation during these events. 

Consequently, the proposed changes will 

have no impact on the probability or 

consequences of any 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 changes affect the Limiting Condition 

for Operation for Refueling Operations—

Instrumentation, in particular, the neutron 

flux instrumentation. The changes are only 

applicable in MODE 2. Under the proposed 

change, the neutron flux instrumentation will 

continue to operate in the same manner as 

previously considered. Accident initial 

conditions and assumptions remain as 

previously analyzed. 

The proposed changes do not introduce 

any new or different accident initiators. In 

addition, the requested increase in the 

allowed time between the flux channel 

Channel Functional Tests and the beginning 

of Mode 2 Physics Tests from 12 hours to 24 

hours will not adversely impact the 

instrumentation’s stability or capability. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The changes affect the Limiting Condition 

for Operation for Refueling Operations—

Instrumentation; in particular, the neutron 

flux instrumentation. The proposed changes 

to TS will not result in design changes to the 

neutron flux instrumentation or in changes to 

how the neutron flux instrumentation is 

used. As discussed in the response to 

question #1 above, channel operability will 

continue to be ensured by the CHANNEL 

CHECK and CHANNEL CALIBRATION 

requirements of TS 4.3.1.1.1. Therefore, 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: Mary E. 

O’Reilly, Attorney, FirstEnergy 

Corporation, 76 South Main Street, 

Akron, OH 44308. 

NRC Section Chief: Gene Y. Suh. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 

No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: August 

11, 2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

Figure 2–3 in Technical Specification 

(TS) 2.3(4) and related technical 

information to this figure in the Basis of 

TS 3.6. This figure shows the minimum 

volume of Tri-sodium Phosphate (TSP) 

required for a specified reactor coolant 

system (RCS) hot zero power (HZP) 

critical boron concentration (CBC) over 

the operating cycle. Maintaining a 

volume of TSP in the baskets that is 

within the area of acceptable operation 

of Figure 2–3 ensures that the 

recirculation water in the containment 

sump attains a pH of 7.0 or greater 

following a loss-of-coolant accident 

(LOCA). This figure allows the required 

volume of TSP to gradually decrease as 

HZP CBC decreases during the operating 

cycle. As HZP CBC decreases, less TSP 

is required to attain a pH of 7.0 or 

greater in the containment sump. Also, 

TS 3.6(2) is being revised to remove the 

term Dodecahydrate to be consistent 

with Fort Calhoun Station TS 

Amendment No. 232. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Notices 56503 

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. 

There are no changes to the design or 

operation of the plant that could affect 

system, component, or accident functions as 

a result of revising the current volume of 

active TSP required during Operating Modes 

1 and 2 with a new figure that reflects the 

future RCS volume change. All systems and 

components function as designed, and the 

performance requirements have been 

evaluated and found to be acceptable. 

Allowing the required volume of active 

TSP to decrease over the operating cycle as 

HZP CBC decreases will ensure a pH of 7.0 

or greater in the containment sump following 

a LOCA, yet provides [an] adequate margin 

for EEQ [environmental equipment 

qualification] concerns as containment sump 

pH is less likely to exceed 8.0. 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. 

No new accident scenarios, failure 

mechanisms, or single failures are introduced 

as a result of the proposed change. All 

systems, structures, and components 

previously required for mitigation of an event 

remain capable of fulfilling their intended 

design function with this change to the TS. 

The proposed change has no adverse 

effects on any safety-related systems or 

component and does not challenge the 

performance or integrity of any safety-related 

system. The proposed change has evaluated 

the TSP configuration such that no new 

accident scenarios or single failures are 

introduced. Therefore, the proposed change 

does not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Allowing the required volume of active 

TSP to decrease as HZP CBC decreases still 

ensures a pH of 7.0 or greater in the 

containment sump following a LOCA and 

still provides [an] adequate margin for EEQ 

concerns as containment sump pH is less 

likely to exceed 8.0. Therefore, this change 

does not involve a significant reduction in 

the margin of safety. 

Evaluations were made that indicate that 

the margin for pH control is not altered by 

the proposed changes. A TSP volume that is 

dependent on HZP CBC has been evaluated 

with respect to neutralization of all borated 

water and acid sources. These evaluations 

concluded that there would be no impact on 

pH control, and hence, no reduction in the 

margin of safety related to post LOCA 

conditions. 

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: James R. 

Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1400 L 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005–

3502. 

NRC Section Chief: Daniel S. Collins, 

Acting. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 

No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: August 

11, 2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment includes 

various changes to the Technical 

Specifications (TS). Specifically, Omaha 

Public Power District (OPPD) seeks to 

delete the surveillance requirement (SR) 

of TS 2.10.2(9)b(iii) to verify the 

shutdown margin every 8-hour shift 

during low power physics testing. This 

change will make TS 2.10.2(9)b more 

consistent with SR 3.1.7 of NUREG–

1432, Standard Technical 

Specifications—Combustion 

Engineering Plants, Revision 3. 

The Containment Structural Tests 

Report of TS 5.9.3c is proposed for 

deletion. Amendment No. 216 deleted 

TS 3.5(5), which required submittal of 

the TS 5.9.3c report. The deletion of the 

report and the remaining changes 

described in Attachment 1 are 

considered administrative in nature. 

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 [change] 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This license amendment request (LAR) 

makes no changes to the design or operation 

of the plant that could affect system, 

component, or accident functions. 

The deletion of Technical Specification 

(TS) 2.10.2(9)b(iii) eliminates the need to 

verify shutdown margin (SDM) every 8 hours 

during low power physics testing. Reactivity 

equivalent to at least the highest estimated 

CEA worth is available from the operable 

CEA [control element assembly] groups 

withdrawn (assuming the most reactive CEA 

of the groups withdrawn is stuck in the fully 

withdrawn position). Each CEA not fully 

inserted is demonstrated capable of full 

insertion when tripped from at least the 50% 

withdrawn position within 7 days of 

reducing SDM. Finally, the position of the 

trippable control element assemblies (CEAs) 

during low power physics testing continues 

to be verified every 2 hours. The SDM 

provided by the CEAs ensures that the 

operators can respond promptly to 

unexpected increases in core reactivity. 

Thus, this change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

Deletion of the Containment Structural 

Tests Report is not an initiator of any 

previously evaluated accidents. OPPD will 

continue to report conditions indicative of 

containment deterioration or degradation in 

the Inservice Inspection (ISI) Summary 

Report required by 10 CFR 50.55a, ASME 

[American Society of Mechanical Engineers] 

Section XI, Subsection IWA–6000, and TS 

5.9.3a. 

The Commission has provided guidance 

concerning the application of standards for 

determining whether a significant hazards 

consideration exists by providing certain 

examples (48 FR 14864) of amendments that 

are considered not likely to involve 

significant hazards considerations. One or 

more of these examples are cited to justify 

deletion of the Containment Structural Tests 

Report and for each of the remaining 

administrative changes. Thus, these changes 

do not increase the probability or 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment [change] 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This proposed change affects only the TSs 

and does not involve a physical change to the 

plant. No modifications are made to existing 

components nor will any new or different 

type of equipment be installed. The deletion 

of the surveillance requirement (SR) to verify 

SDM every 8 hours during low power 

physics testing does not create the possibility 

of a new or different kind of accident. 

The SRs that remain ensure that the SDM 

provided by the CEAs is adequate and that 

the CEAs are capable of full insertion. CEA 

positions will continue to be verified at least 

once per [a] 2-hour interval during low 

power physics testing. The SDM provided by 

the CEAs ensures that the operators can 

respond promptly to unexpected increases in 

core reactivity. 

The deletion of a report that is redundant 

to federal regulations is an administrative 

change that does not create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident. OPPD 

will continue to report conditions indicative 

of containment deterioration or degradation 

in the ISI Summary Report. 

The remaining changes proposed by this 

LAR are administrative in nature. These 

changes do not impose different 

56504 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Notices 

requirements and do not alter assumptions 

made in the safety analysis and licensing 

basis. Therefore, they do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment [change] 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not affect any 

safety analysis assumptions. During low 

power physics testing, the position of the 

trippable CEAs will continue to be verified 

at 2-hour intervals. The deleted 8-hour SDM 

surveillance requirement is performed less 

frequently, is redundant and unnecessary. 

The SDM provided by the CEAs ensures that 

the operators can respond promptly to 

unexpected increases in core reactivity. The 

Containment Structural Tests Report can be 

deleted since OPPD will continue to report 

conditions indicative of containment 

deterioration or degradation in accordance 

with 10 CFR 50.55a in the ISI Summary 

Report required by TS 5.9.3a. 

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: James R. 

Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1400 L 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005–

3502. 

NRC Section Chief: Daniel S. Collins, 

Acting. 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 

South Carolina Public Service 

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

Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Unit 

No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: June 22, 

2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed changes would revise the 

reactor coolant system heatup and 

cooldown curves located in Technical 

Specification (TS) section 3/4.4.9 to 

reflect the results of the last reactor 

vessel surveillance specimen that was 

removed from the reactor vessel and 

analyzed. 

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 changes revise the P/T 

[pressure/temperature] limit curves to 

provide figures that reflect the results of the 

analysis performed on reactor vessel 

surveillance specimen Z. This analysis was 

performed using NRC approved methodology 

as documented in WCAP 14040–NP–A, 

Revision 4, utilizing the 1998 ASME 

[American Society of Mechanical Engineers] 

Code, Section XI through the 2000 addenda, 

Appendix G requirements. These curves 

provide the limits for operation of the 

Reactor Coolant System during heatup, 

cooldown, criticality, and hydrostatic testing. 

These curves are provided without 

instrument uncertainties included, however, 

the uncertainties are included in the curves 

provided in the plant operating procedures. 

The limits protect the reactor vessel from 

brittle fracture by separating the region of 

acceptable operation from the region where 

brittle fracture is postulated to occur. Failure 

of the reactor vessel is not a VCSNS design 

basis accident, and, in general, reactor vessel 

failure has a low probability of occurrence 

and is not considered in the safety analysis. 

Therefore, the 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 changes revises the P/T 

limits curves, Section 3/4.4.9, to incorporate 

the results fo the analysis performed on 

reactor vessel specimen Z. There are no 

physical plant design changes or significant 

changes in any operating procedures. This 

change adjusts the heatup and cooldown 

curves to reflect the shift in nil-ductility 

reference temperature of the reactor vessel as 

a result of neutron embrittlement. Therefore, 

the change does not create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

3. Does this change involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes revise the P/T limits 

curves, Section 3/4.4.9, to incorporate the 

results of the analysis performed on reactor 

vessel specimen Z. The new P/T curves 

ensure that the 10 CFR 50 Appendix G, 

requirements are not exceeded during normal 

operation including Reactor Coolant System 

transients during heatup, cooldown, 

criticality and hydrostatic testing. The new 

P/T curves were prepared, using approved 

industry methodology, for a projected reactor 

vessel neutron exposure of 56 EFPY [effective 

full-power year]. The proposed P/T limit 

curves reflect a shift of the limits in a 

conservative direction from the current 

requirements. Therefore, the change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Thomas G. 

Eppink, South Carolina Electric & Gas 

Company, Post Office Box 764, 

Columbia, South Carolina 29218. 

NRC Section Chief: Evangelos C. 

Marinos. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–260 and 50–296, Browns Ferry 

Nuclear Plant, Units 2 and 3, Limestone 

County, Alabama 

Date of amendment request: July 29, 

2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

proposed amendments revised the 

technical specification (TS) testing 

frequency for the surveillance 

requirement (SR) 3.1.4.2, control rod 

scram time testing, from 120 days 

cumulative operation in MODE 1 to 200 

days cumulative operation in MODE 1. 

The NRC staff issued a notice of 

availability of a model no significant 

hazards consideration (NSHC) 

determination for referencing in 

licensing amendment applications in 

the Federal Register on August 23, 2004 

(69 FR 51864). The licensee affirmed the 

applicability of the model NSHC 

determination in its application dated 

July 29, 2005. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration is presented 

below: 

1. Does the change involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change extends the 

frequency for testing control rod scram time 

testing from every 120 days of cumulative 

Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative 

Mode 1 operation. The frequency of 

surveillance testing is not an initiator of any 

accident previously evaluated. The frequency 

of surveillance testing does not affect the 

ability to mitigate any accident previously 

evaluated, as the tested component is still 

required to be operable. Therefore, the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the change create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change extends the 

frequency for testing control rod scram time 

testing from every 120 days of cumulative 

Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative 

Mode 1 operation. The proposed change does 

not result in any new or different modes of 

plant operation. 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? 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Notices 56505 

Response: No. 

The proposed change extends the 

frequency for testing control rod scram time 

testing from every 120 days of cumulative 

Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative 

Mode 1 operation. The proposed change 

continues to test the control rod scram time 

to ensure the assumptions in the safety 

analysis are protected. Therefore, the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff proposes to determine 

that the amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: General 

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, 

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. 

NRC Section Chief: Michael L. 

Marshall, Jr. 

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. 

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 

18, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed Technical 

Specification changes are needed to 

accommodate the replacement of the 

Reactor Building Emergency Sump 

suction inlet trash racks and screens 

with strainers. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: August 31, 

2005 (70 FR 51852). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

September 30, 2005. 

Florida Power Corporation, et al., 

Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 

No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus 

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: January 

27, 2005, revised by letter dated August 

12, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendment 

would allow the licensee to utilize a 

probabilistic methodology to determine 

the contribution to main steamline 

break leakage rates for the once-through 

steam generator (OTSG) from the tube 

end crack (TEC) alternate repair criteria 

described in Improved Technical 

Specification (ITS) 5.6.2.10.2.f and also 

involves a change to ITS 5.6.2.10.2.f to 

incorporate the basis of the proposed 

probabilistic methodology and the 

method and technical justification for 

projecting the TEC leakage that may 

develop during the next operating cycle 

following the inservice inspection of 

each OTSG. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: August 26, 

2005 (70 FR 50424). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

September 26, 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. 

Duke Energy Corporation, et al., Docket 

Nos. 50–413, 50–414, 50–369, and 50–

370, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 

and 2, York County, South Carolina and 

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. 

Date of application for amendments: 

July 7, 2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications TS 3.9.1, ‘‘Boron 

Concentration,’’ to clarify the technical 

requirements for boron concentration 

when the refueling canal and the 

refueling cavity are not connected to the 

reactor coolant system. 

Date of issuance: September 1, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 231/213 and 226/ 

221. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–35, NPF–52, NPF–9 and NPF–

17: Amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 2, 2005 (70 FR 44401). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 1, 

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: 

December 20, 2004, as supplemented by 

letters dated June 6 and August 10, 

2005. 

56506 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Notices 

Brief description of amendment: The 

Amendment revised the safety analysis 

report (SAR) to allow the licensee the 

use of a lifting tripod (a special lifting 

device) to remove and install the reactor 

vessel (RV) head and certain RV 

internals during refueling outages, using 

the reactor building polar crane. 

Date of issuance: August 30, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. The SAR changes shall be 

implemented in the next periodic 

update to the SAR in accordance with 

Paragraph 50.71(e) of Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

Amendment No.: 225. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–51: Amendment revised the 

SAR. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 1, 2005 (70 FR 5242) 

The supplements dated June 6 and 

August 10, 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 30, 

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: 

May 11, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: This 

amendment allows a one-time extension 

of the surveillance interval for the 

reactor vessel internals vent valves from 

September 2005 to March 2006. 

Date of issuance: September 6, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 14 days. 

Amendment No.: 268. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–3: 

Amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications/License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 5, 2005 (70 FR 38719). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 6, 

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: 

December 20, 2004, as supplemented by 

letter dated April 6, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: This 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 3/4.9.2, ‘‘Refueling 

Operations—Instrumentation.’’

Specifically, the changes revised TS 3/ 

4.9.2 concerning source range flux 

monitors to be more consistent with 

improved Standard Technical 

Specifications. The changes achieve 

consistency with corresponding 

requirements in NUREG–1430, 

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications 

Babcock and Wilcox Plants,’’ Revision 

3, dated June 2004, with exceptions to 

account for plant-specific design 

differences and retention of current 

licensing basis requirements and 

commitments. 

Date of issuance: September 12, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days. 

Amendment No.: 269. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–3: 

Amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 15, 2005 (70 FR 

7765). The supplement dated April 6, 

2005, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally notice, and did not change the 

NRC staff original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register on February 15, 2005 

(70 FR 7765). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 12, 

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: 

July 8, 2004. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment deletes one-time use 

footnotes that have expired or have 

already been used from the Crystal River 

Unit 3 (CR–3) Improved Technical 

Specifications (ITS). Specifically, ITS 

3.7.9, ‘‘Nuclear Services Seawater 

System’’ and ITS 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—

Operating (Emergency Diesel 

Generator)’’ notes are removed. These 

changes are administrative in nature 

and do not alter any operating license 

requirements. 

Date of issuance: September 6, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 220. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

72: Amendment revises the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 3, 2004 (69 FR 46585). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 6, 

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: 

September 21, 2004, as supplemented 

by letters dated March 18, April 7, May 

6, and August 10, 2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments the 69 kV offsite power 

circuit limiting conditions for operation 

action statements. Add a license 

condition to extend the required action 

completion time for an inoperable 

alternate offsite power source (69 kV 

circuit) from the current 72 hours to 14 

days on a one-time basis. 

Date of issuance: September 9, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 289, 271. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

58 and DPR–74: Amendments revised 

the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 26, 2004 (69 FR 

62476) 

The supplemental letters contained 

clarifying information and did not 

change the initial no significant hazards 

consideration determination and did not 

expand the scope of the original Federal 

Register notice. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 9, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272 

and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendments: 

September 27, 2004, as supplemented 

by letter dated August 2, 2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Notices 56507 

Specifications (TSs) related to the 

reactor coolant pump flywheel 

inspection program by increasing the 

inspection interval to 20 years. 

Date of issuance: September 9, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 265 and 247. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

70 and DPR–75: The amendments 

revised the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 29, 2005 (70 FR 

15945). The licensee’s supplement 

dated August 2, 2005, did not change 

the scope of the proposed amendment 

as described in the original notice of 

proposed action published in the 

Federal Register, and did not change 

the initial proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 9, 

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: 

August 26, 2004, as supplemented by 

letter dated July 18, 2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise the following 

Technical Specifications (TSs): TS 4.2.1, 

‘‘Fuel Assemblies,’’ adds reference to 

ZIRLOTM clad fuel and filler rods; and 

TS 5.7.1.5, ‘‘Core Operating Limits 

Report (COLR),’’ adds the following 

references to the list of analytical 

methods used to determine the core 

operating limits: ‘‘Calculative Methods 

for the CE Nuclear Power Large Break 

LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] 

Evaluation Model,’’ CENPD–132, 

Supplement 4–P–A, August 2000, and 

‘‘Implementation of ZIRLOTM Cladding 

Material in CE Nuclear Power Fuel 

Assembly Designs,’’ CENPD–404–P–A, 

November 2001. These changes were 

requested to implement ZIRLOTM fuel 

rod cladding material into the fuel 

design for San Onofre Nuclear 

Generating Station, Units 2 and 3. 

Date of issuance: September 14, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 2–199; Unit 

3–190. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

10 and NPF–15: The amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 28, 2004 (69 FR 

57991). 

The supplemental letter dated July 18, 

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 amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton 

County, Tennessee 

Date of application for amendments: 

April 27, 2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the applicability of 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.3, 

Functional Unit 18.A, ‘‘Turbine Trip, 

Low Fluid Oil Pressure,’’ and TS 

Functional Unit 18.B, ‘‘Turbine Trip, 

Turbine Stop Valve Closure,’’ by 

altering Table 3.3–1, ‘‘Reactor Trip 

System Instrumentation,’’ and Table 

4.3–1, ‘‘Reactor Trip System 

Instrumentation Surveillance 

Requirements.’’ The change adds a 

footnote that indicates that the Mode 1 

applicability is limited to operation 

above the P–9 (50 percent rated thermal 

power) interlock setpoint value. 

Additionally, the action for an 

inoperable turbine stop valve closure 

channel is revised to be consistent with 

the design of this function. Finally, an 

option is added to permit a reduction in 

thermal power to below the P–9 

interlock within 10 hours for an 

inoperable turbine stop valve closure 

channel. 

Date of issuance: September 2, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 45 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 304 and 294. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

77 and DPR–79: Amendments revised 

the technical specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 5, 2005 (70 FR 38722). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 2, 

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 

56508 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Notices 

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. 

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, 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Notices 56509 

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). 

Energy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–

368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: July 21, 

2005, as supplemented by letters dated 

August 4 and August 26, 2005. The 

supplemental letters 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. 

Description of amendment request: To 

incorporate new Arkansas Nuclear One, 

Unit 2, Technical Specifications in 

support of dry cask loading operations 

in the spent fuel pool. The amendment 

ensures subcritical conditions are 

maintained in the spent fuel pool during 

dry cask loading operations by relying 

on realistically conservative fuel burnup 

credit. 

Date of issuance: September 6, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance to be implemented within 30 

days from the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 261. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–6: 

Amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Public comments requested as to 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration (NSHC): Yes (70 FR 

48196, published August 16, 2005). The 

notice provided an opportunity to 

submit comments on the Commission’s 

proposed NSHC determination. No 

comments have been received. The 

notice also provided an opportunity to 

request a hearing by November 4, 2005, 

but indicated that if the Commission 

makes a final NSHC determination, any 

such hearing would take place after 

issuance of the amendment. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment, finding of exigent 

circumstances, state consultation, and 

final NSHC determination are contained 

in a safety evaluation dated September 

6, 2005. 

Attorney for licensee: Winston & 

Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20006–3817. 

NRC Section Chief: David Terao. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th 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. 05–19028 Filed 9–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

In the Matter of Certain Panoramic and 

Underwater Irradiators Authorized to 

Possess Greater than 370 

Terabecquerels (10,000 Curies) of 

Byproduct Material in the Form of 

Sealed Sources, and All Other Persons 

Who Obtain Safeguards Information 

Described Herein; Order Imposing 

Compensatory Measures and 

Requirements for the Protection of 

Certain Safeguards Information 

(Effective Immediately) 

I 

The Licensees identified in 

Attachment 1 to this Order hold licenses 

issued in accordance with the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954 and 10 CFR Part 36 

or comparable Agreement State 

regulations by the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC or 

Commission) or an Agreement State 

authorizing possession of greater than 

370 terabecquerels (10,000 curies) of 

byproduct material in the form of sealed 

sources either in panoramic irradiators 

that have dry or wet storage of the 

sealed sources or in underwater 

irradiators in which both the source and 

the product being irradiated are under 

water. Commission regulations at 10 

CFR 20.1801 or equivalent Agreement 

State regulations, require Licensees to 

secure, from unauthorized removal or 

access, licensed materials that are stored 

in controlled or unrestricted areas. 

Commission regulations at 10 CFR 

20.1802 or equivalent Agreement States 

regulations, require Licensees to control 

and maintain constant surveillance of 

licensed material that is in a controlled 

or unrestricted area and that is not in 

storage. 

II 

On September 11, 2001, terrorists 

simultaneously attacked targets in New 

York, N.Y., and Washington, DC, 

utilizing large commercial aircraft as 

weapons. In response to the attacks and 

intelligence information subsequently 

obtained, the Commission issued a 

number of Safeguards and Threat 

Advisories to its Licensees in order to 

strengthen Licensees’ capabilities and 

readiness to respond to a potential 

attack on a nuclear facility. The 

Commission has also communicated 

with other Federal, State and local 

government agencies and industry 

representatives to discuss and evaluate 

the current threat environment in order 

to assess the adequacy of security 

measures at licensed facilities. In 

addition, the Commission has been 

conducting a review of its safeguards 

and security programs and 

requirements. 

As a result of its consideration of 

current safeguards and license 

requirements, as well as a review of 

information provided by the intelligence 

community, the Commission has 

determined that certain compensatory 

measures are required to be 

implemented by Licensees as prudent 

measures to address the current threat 

environment. Therefore, the 

Commission is imposing the 

requirements, as set forth in Attachment 

2, on all Licensees identified in