Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices 70641 

aks@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: November 17, 2005. 

R. Michelle Schroll, 

Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–23145 Filed 11–18–05; 10:53 

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 October 28, 

2005, to November 9, 2005. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67744). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 

of the facility in accordance with the 

proposed amendment would not (1) 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated; or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. Within 60 days after the 

date of publication of this notice, the 

licensee may file a request for a hearing 

with respect to issuance of the 

amendment to the subject facility 

operating license and any person whose 

interest may be affected by this 

proceeding and who wishes to 

participate as a party in the proceeding 

must file a written request for a hearing 

and a petition for leave to intervene. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rules and 

Directives Branch, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and should cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 

Register notice. Written comments may 

also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two 

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 

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

Copies of written comments received 

may be examined at the Commission’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), located 

at One White Flint North, Public File 

Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of 

requests for a hearing and petitions for 

leave to intervene is discussed below. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, the licensee 

may file a request for a hearing with 

respect to issuance of the amendment to 

the subject facility operating license and 

any person whose interest may be 

affected by this proceeding and who 

wishes to participate as a party in the 

proceeding must file a written request 

for a hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 

petition for leave to intervene shall be 

filed in accordance with the 

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for 

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 

CFR part 2. Interested persons should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

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

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

request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene is filed within 60 

days, the Commission or a presiding 

officer designated by the Commission or 

by the Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

70642 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices 

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 e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket No. 50–412, 

Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2, 

Beaver County, Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: October 

14, 2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed changes would revise 

Technical Specifications (TSs) 3/4.8.2.3, 

‘‘D.C. [direct current] Distribution—

Operating’’ and 3/4.8.2.4, ‘‘D.C. 

Distribution—Shutdown,’’ to permit 

implementation of design changes 

associated with a battery charger 

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. 

Failure of the components associated with 

the proposed change (i.e., battery chargers 

and Uninterruptible Power Supply [UPS] 

rectifiers) would not initiate any of the 

accidents described in the Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report. No design function is 

being changed, and there is no adverse 

impact on the probability or consequences of 

accidents described in the safety analyses. 

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. 

Failure modes associated with the rectifiers 

are reduced by the addition of battery 

chargers. A rectifier failure in the original 

design would result in a loss of battery 

charging and vital-bus load carrying 

functions. As a result of the modification, a 

dedicated battery charger will eliminate the 

battery charging design function loss upon 

failure of a rectifier. The failure mode for the 

new battery charger will be limited to a 

failure mode previously associated with the 

rectifiers. No new failure modes are 

associated with the new battery chargers. 

No new failure modes are created by the 

proposed change; 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 modification does not reduce the 

margin of safety. Vital and DC bus support 

functions are unaffected. The system will 

still consist of rectifier and inverter units to 

provide AC power to the associated vital 

buses and units that charge the bus batteries 

and carry the associated DC bus loads. The 

only difference is that the Nos. 2–3 and 2–

4 UPS unit rectifiers will no longer perform 

both of these functions. Separate battery 

charger units will charge the bus batteries 

and carry the DC loads. The new arrangement 

for DC buses 2–3 and 2–4 will match the 

existing arrangement of DC buses 2–1 and 

2–2, insofar as the modification will result in 

all four instrument buses having separate 

UPS rectifier assemblies and battery charger 

devices. Dedicated bus 2–3 and 2–4 charges 

should increase system reliability. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices 70643 

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 O’Reilly, 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 

South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. 

NRC Branch Chief: Richard J. Laufer. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50–327, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 

Hamilton County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: August 

31, 2005. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

Technical Specifications (TS) to adopt 

NRC-approved Revision 4 to Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Standard Technical Specification 

Change Traveler, TSTF–449, ‘‘Steam 

Generator Tube Integrity.’’ The 

proposed amendment includes changes 

to the TS definition of Leakage, TS 

3.4.6.2, ‘‘Reactor Coolant System, 

Operational Leakage,’’ TS 3.4.5, ‘‘Steam 

Generator (SG) Tube Integrity,’’ and 

adds TS 6.8.k, ‘‘Steam Generator (SG) 

Program,’’ and TS 6.9.1.16, ‘‘Steam 

Generator Tube Inspection Report.’’ The 

proposed changes are necessary in order 

to implement the guidance for the 

industry initiative on NEI 97–06, 

‘‘Steam Generator Program Guidelines.’’

The NRC staff issued a notice of 

opportunity for comment in the Federal 

Register on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 

10298), on possible amendments 

adopting TSTF–449, including a model 

safety evaluation and model no 

significant hazards consideration 

(NSHC) determination, using the 

consolidated line item improvement 

process. The NRC staff subsequently 

issued a notice of availability of the 

models for referencing in license 

amendment applications in the Federal 

Register on May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24126). 

The licensee affirmed the applicability 

of the following NSHC determination in 

its application dated August 31, 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: 

Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change requires a SG 

Program that includes performance criteria 

that will provide reasonable assurance that 

the SG tubing will retain integrity over the 

full range of operating conditions (including 

startup, operation in the power range, hot 

standby, cooldown and all anticipated 

transients included in the design 

specification). The SG performance criteria 

are based on tube structural integrity, 

accident induced leakage, and operational 

LEAKAGE. 

A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) 

event is one of the design basis accidents that 

are analyzed as part of a plant’s licensing 

basis. In the analysis of a SGTR event, a 

bounding primary to secondary LEAKAGE 

rate equal to the operational LEAKAGE rate 

limits in the licensing basis plus the 

LEAKAGE rate associated with a doubleended rupture of a single tube is assumed. 

For other design basis accidents such as a 

main steamline break (MSLB), rod ejection, 

and reactor coolant pump locked rotor the 

tubes are assumed to retain their structural 

integrity (i.e., they are assumed not to 

rupture). These analyses typically assume 

that primary to secondary LEAKAGE for all 

SGs is 1 gallon per minute or increases to 1 

gallon per minute as a result of accident 

induced stresses. The accident induced 

leakage criterion introduced by the proposed 

changes accounts for tubes that may leak 

during design basis accidents. The accident 

induced leakage criterion limits this leakage 

to no more than the value assumed in the 

accident analysis. 

The SG performance criteria proposed 

change to the TS identify the standards 

against which tube integrity is to be 

measured. Meeting the performance criteria 

provides reasonable assurance that the SG 

tubing will remain capable of fulfilling its 

specific safety function of maintaining 

reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity 

throughout each operating cycle and in the 

unlikely event of a design basis accident. The 

performance criteria are only a part of the SG 

Program required by the proposed change to 

the TS. The program, defined by NEI 97–06, 

Steam Generator Program Guidelines, 

includes a framework that incorporates a 

balance of prevention, inspection, evaluation, 

repair, and leakage monitoring. The proposed 

changes do not, therefore, significantly 

increase the probability of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

The consequences of design basis accidents 

are, in part, functions of the DOSE 

EQUIVALENT I–131 in the primary coolant 

and the primary to secondary LEAKAGE 

rates resulting from an accident. Therefore, 

limits are included in the plant technical 

specifications for operational leakage and for 

DOSE EQUIVALENT I–131 in primary 

coolant to ensure the plant is operated within 

its analyzed condition. The typical analysis 

of the limiting design basis accident assumes 

that primary to secondary leak rate after the 

accident is 1 gallon per minute with no more 

than [500 gallons per day or 720 gallons per 

day] in any one SG, and that the reactor 

coolant activity levels of DOSE 

EQUIVALENT I–131 are at the TS values 

before the accident. 

The proposed change does not affect the 

design of the SGs, their method of operation, 

or primary coolant chemistry controls. The 

proposed approach updates the current TSs 

and enhances the requirements for SG 

inspections. The proposed change does not 

adversely impact any other previously 

evaluated design basis accident and is an 

improvement over the current TSs. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

affect the consequences of a SGTR accident 

and the probability of such an accident is 

reduced. In addition, the proposed changes 

do not affect the consequences of an MSLB, 

rod ejection, or a reactor coolant pump 

locked rotor event, or other previously 

evaluated accident. 

Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not 

Create the Possibility of a New or Different 

Kind of Accident from any Previously 

Evaluated 

The proposed performance based 

requirements are an improvement over the 

requirements imposed by the current 

technical specifications. Implementation of 

the proposed SG Program will not introduce 

any adverse changes to the plant design basis 

or postulated accidents resulting from 

potential tube degradation. The result of the 

implementation of the SG Program will be an 

enhancement of SG tube performance. 

Primary to secondary LEAKAGE that may be 

experienced during all plant conditions will 

be monitored to ensure it remains within 

current accident analysis assumptions. 

The proposed change does not affect the 

design of the SGs, their method of operation, 

or primary or secondary coolant chemistry 

controls. In addition, the proposed change 

does not impact any other plant system or 

component. The change enhances SG 

inspection requirements. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

type of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin 

of Safety 

The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors 

are an integral part of the reactor coolant 

pressure boundary and, as such, are relied 

upon to maintain the primary system’s 

pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor 

coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are 

unique in that they are also relied upon as 

a heat transfer surface between the primary 

and secondary systems such that residual 

heat can be removed from the primary 

system. In addition, the SG tubes isolate the 

radioactive fission products in the primary 

coolant from the secondary system. In 

summary, the safety function of an SG is 

maintained by ensuring the integrity of its 

tubes. 

Steam generator tube integrity is a function 

of the design, environment, and the physical 

condition of the tube. The proposed change 

does not affect tube design or operating 

environment. The proposed change is 

expected to result in an improvement in the 

tube integrity by implementing the SG 

70644 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices 

Program to manage SG tube inspection, 

assessment, repair, and plugging. The 

requirements established by the SG Program 

are consistent with those in the applicable 

design codes and standards and are an 

improvement over the requirements in the 

current TSs. 

For the above reasons, the margin of safety 

is not changed and overall plant safety will 

be enhanced by the proposed change to the 

TS. 

The NRC staff proposes to determine 

that the amendments 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 Branch Chief: Michael L. 

Marshall, Jr. 

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. 

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–461, Clinton Power Station, Unit 

1, DeWitt County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendment: 

May 20, 2004, as supplemented May 23 

and September 30, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) to support the 

implementation of 24-month fuel cycles 

at Clinton Power Station, Unit 1. 

Date of issuance: October 24, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 169. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–

62: The amendment revised the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 6, 2004 (69 FR 40669). 

The supplements dated May 23 and 

September 30, 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 amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 24, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–461, Clinton Power Station, Unit 

1, DeWitt County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendment: 

August 18, 2004, as supplemented May 

13 and 25, June 14, August 17, and 

October 24 and 25, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 4.3, ‘‘Fuel Storage,’’

to reflect the increased spent fuel 

storage capacity at Clinton Power 

Station, Unit 1. 

Date of issuance: October 31, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 170. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–

62: The amendment revised the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 29, 2005 (70 FR 

51093). In the supplement dated June 

14, 2005, the licensee changed the use 

of the building crane and the temporary 

crane. This change may have impacted 

the staff’’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination published on December 

29, 2004 (69 FR 78051). Therefore a 

revised no significant hazards 

consideration determination was 

published on August 29, 2005. 

However, the supplements dated 

October 24 and 25, 2005, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as noticed, and did not 

change the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 

50–269 and 50–270, Oconee Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2, Oconee County, 

South Carolina 

Date of application of amendments: 

August 18, 2005, as supplemented by 

letter dated September 15, 2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications 3.5.2.6 and 3.5.3.6 to 

accommodate the replacement of the 

reactor building emergency sump 

suction inlet trash racks and screens 

with strainers. 

Date of issuance: November 1, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 348/350. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–38 and DPR–47: Amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 31, 2005 (70 FR 

51852). The supplement dated 

September 15, 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 amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated November 1, 

2005. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices 70645 

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 

Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, 

Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, 

Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, 

Illinois 

Date of application for amendments: 

November 4, 2004, as supplemented by 

letters dated March 8, May 25 and July 

8, 2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendment revises TS Section 3.4.9, 

‘‘Reactor Coolant System Pressure and 

Temperature (P/T) Limits.’’ The changes 

revise the P/T limit curves for 54 

effective full power years (EFPY) to 

support an additional 20 years of 

operation under the renewed license 

and resolve a non-conservative 

condition for TS 3.4.9, Figure 3.4.9–2, 

‘‘Non-Nuclear Heatup/Cooldown 

Curve,’’ for Quad Cities Nuclear Power 

Station. 

Date of issuance: October 17, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 217, 209, 228, 223. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

19, DPR–25, DPR–29 and DPR–30. The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 1, 2005 (70 FR 

5244). The supplements dated March 8, 

May 25 and July 8, 2005, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 17, 

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: 

January 27, 2005, as supplemented by 

letters dated August 12, September 9, 

and October 21, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment allows 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 issuance: October 31, 2005. 

Effective date: October 31, 2005. 

Amendment No.: 222. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

72: Amendment revises the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of notice in Federal Register: 

August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50424) and 

Repeat Notice dated September 27, 2005 

(70 FR 56505). The August 26, 2005, 

Notice revised the previous notice dated 

March 15, 2005 (70 FR 12746). The 

licensee’s supplement dated August 12, 

2005, revised the proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination and the licensee’s 

supplements dated September 9, and 

October 21, 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 proposed 

no significant hazards consideration 

determination as published August 26, 

2005, in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo 

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 

California 

Date of application for amendments: 

March 11, 2005, and its supplement 

dated August 25, 2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments allow use of the steam 

generator tube W* (W-star) alternate 

repair criteria for indications in the 

Westinghouse explosive tube expansion 

region on a permanent basis. 

Date of issuance: October 28, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

prior to startup of Cycle 14. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–182; Unit 

2–184. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

80 and DPR–82: The amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 26, 2005 (70 FR 21462). 

The August 25, 2005, supplemental 

letter provided additional clarifying 

information, 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 October 28, 

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: 

February 3, 2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification 3.6.3, ‘‘Containment 

Isolation Valves,’’ Surveillance 

Requirements 3.6.3.3 and 3.6.3.4 for 

Containment Isolation Valves and Blind 

Flanges (CIVs), by adding a provision to 

exempt CIVs that are locked, sealed, or 

otherwise secured from the position 

verification requirements. 

Date of issuance: November 3, 2005. 

Effective date: November 3, 2005, to 

be implemented within 60 days of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 2–201; Unit 

3–192. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

10 and NPF–15: The amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 1, 2005 (70 FR 9996). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated November 3, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

STP Nuclear Operating Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South 

Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda 

County, Texas 

Date of amendment request: June 2, 

2005. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments change Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.4.6.1, ‘‘Reactor 

Coolant System Leakage Detection 

Systems,’’ to specifically require only 

one containment radioactivity monitor 

(particulate channel) to be operable in 

Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4. Additionally, 

corresponding changes to the 

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.4.6.1 

and 4.4.6.2.1, ‘‘Reactor Coolant System 

Operational Leakage,’’ were also made. 

Date of issuance: October 17, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

70646 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–174; Unit 

2–162. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

76 and NPF–80: The 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 October 17, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North 

Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Louisa County, Virginia 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 1, 2005, as supplemented by 

letters dated June 16 and September 23, 

2005. 

Brief description of amendment: 

These amendments revise the frequency 

for the trip actuating device operational 

test (TADOT) of the P–4 interlock 

function. The proposed changes would 

revise the surveillance requirement 

frequency in Technical Specification 

3.3.2 from ‘‘once per reactor trip breaker 

cycle’’ to ‘‘18 months’’ for North Anna, 

Units 1 and 2. 

Date of issuance: October 24, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 244/225. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–4 and NPF–7: Amendments 

change the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 26, 2005 (70 FR 21465). 

The supplements dated June 16 and 

September 23, 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 amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 24, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North 

Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Louisa County, Virginia 

Date of application for amendment: 

July 14, 2005. 

Brief description of amendment: 

These amendments correct two errors in 

the units of measure used to determine 

the Overtemperature dT Function 

Allowable Value. 

Date of issuance: October 25, 2005. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 245/226. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–4 and NPF–7: Amendments 

change the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 16, 2005 (70 FR 

48208) 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 25, 

2005. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day 

of November, 2005. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Catherine Haney, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 05–22795 Filed 11–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 35–28064] 

Filing Under the Public Utility Holding 

Company Act of 1935, as Amended 

(‘‘Act’’) 

November 15, 2005. 

Notice is hereby given that the 

following filing has been made with the 

Commission pursuant to provisions of 

the Act and rules promulgated under 

the Act. All interested persons are 

referred to the application-declaration 

for complete statements of the proposed 

transactions summarized below. The 

application-declaration and any 

amendments are available for public 

inspection through the Commission’s 

Branch of Public Reference. 

Interested persons wishing to 

comment or request a hearing on the 

application-declaration should submit 

their views in writing by December 12, 

2005, to the Secretary, Securities and 

Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 

20549–0609, and serve a copy on 

Applicants at the addresses specified 

below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, 

in the case of an attorney at law, by 

certificate) should be filed with the 

request. Any request for hearing should 

identify specifically the issues of fact or 

law that are disputed. A person who so 

requests will be notified of any hearing, 

if ordered, and will receive a copy of 

any notice or order issued in this matter. 

After December 12, 2005, the 

application-declaration, as filed or as 

amended, may be granted and/or 

permitted to become effective. 

National Fuel Gas Company, et al. (70–

10074) 

National Fuel Gas Company (‘‘NFG’’), 

a registered holding company, National 

Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation 

(‘‘Distribution’’), a public-utility 

subsidiary company of NFG, and NFG’s 

nonutility subsidiary companies, 

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, 

Horizon Energy Development, Inc. and 

its subsidiaries, Highland Forest 

Resources, Inc. and its subsidiaries, 

Leidy Hub, Inc., Data-Track Account 

Services, Inc., Horizon LFG, Inc. and its 

subsidiaries, Horizon Power, Inc. and its 

subsidiaries, all at 6363 Main Street, 

Williamsville, New York 14221, Seneca 

Resources Corporation and its 

subsidiaries, at 1201 Louisiana Street, 

Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77002, and 

National Fuel Resources, Inc. at 165 

Lawrence Bell Drive, Suite 120, 

Williamsville, New York 14221 

(Distribution and NFG’s nonutility 

subsidiary companies are collectively 

referred to as, ‘‘Subsidiaries’’), have 

filed a post-effective amendment to their 

application-declaration filed under 

sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10, 12(b), 12(f), and 

13 of the Act and rules 45 and 54 under 

the Act. 

By order dated November 12, 2002 

(HCAR No. 27600) (‘‘Prior Order’’) the 

Commission authorized NFG and its 

Subsidiaries to engage in financing and 

related transactions through December 

31, 2005 (‘‘Authorization Period’’). 

Specifically, the Commission 

authorized: (i) NFG to increase equity 

and long-term debt capitalization in an 

aggregate amount of up to an additional 

$1.5 billion, excluding any common 

stock issued under NFG’s shareholder 

rights plan, and to utilize the proceeds 

to make investments in its Subsidiaries, 

and for other corporate purposes; (ii) 

NFG to issue and sell from time to time 

up to $750 million principal amount of 

unsecured short-term debt securities 

such as commercial paper and notes 

issued under credit facilities; (iii) NFG 

and the Subsidiaries to enter into 

interest rate hedges with respect to 

outstanding indebtedness and to enter 

into certain anticipatory interest rate 

hedging transactions; (iv) NFG to 

guarantee securities of its Subsidiaries 

and provide other forms of credit 

support with respect to obligations of its 

Subsidiaries as may be necessary in the 

ordinary course of business in an 

aggregate amount not to exceed $2 

billion outstanding at any one time; (v) 

NFG to continue to administer the NFG