[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54085-54094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17888]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

I. Background

    Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. 
The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments 
issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the 
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an 
operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such 
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from August 19, 2005, to August 31, 2005. The 
last biweekly notice was published on August 30, 2005 (70 FR 51378).

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, 
and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this 
notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and 
any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who 
wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written 
request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards

[[Page 54086]]

consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment 
prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should 
circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure 
to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or 
shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to 
the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it 
will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the 
Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The 
Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very 
infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of 
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to 
Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of 
written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The 
filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene 
is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a 
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic 
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should 
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition 
for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a 
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the 
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected]; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to 
[email protected]. 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).

[[Page 54087]]

    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to [email protected].

Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North 
Carolina

    Date of amendments request: August 11, 2005.
    Description of amendments request: The proposed change would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.1.3.9 
with respect to the allowed leakage rate through each Main Steam 
Isolation Valve (MSIV). Specifically, the limit is revised from an 
allowable leakage rate of less than or equal to 11.5 standard cubic 
feet per hour (scfh) through each MSIV to less than or equal to 100 
scfh through each main steam line (MSL) with the combined leakage of 
the four MSLs being less than or equal to 150 scfh. Also, changes to TS 
3.3.7.1, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation (CREV) System 
Instrumentation,'' are also included to incorporate new automatic 
initiation functions for the CREV system to support the MSIV leakage 
rate change proposal.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises SR 3.6.1.3.9 with respect to the 
allowed leakage rate through each MSIV. Specifically, the limit is 
revised from an allowable leakage rate of less than or equal to 11.5 
scfh per MSIV to less than or equal to 100 scfh for any one MSL with 
the combined leakage of the four MSLs being less than or equal to 
150 scfh. Also, to support the MSIV leakage rate change, additional 
automatic initiation functions for the CREV system will be 
implemented. The associated changes to TS 3.3.7.1, ``Control Room 
Emergency Ventilation (CREV) System Instrumentation,'' are also 
made.
    The proposed change to the MSIV leakage limit does not involve 
physical change to any plant structure, system, or component. As a 
result, no new failure modes of the MSIVs has been introduced. The 
CREV system initiation logic is being modified; however, this system 
performs a mitigating function and has no impact on any initiating 
event frequency. Therefore, the proposed changes cannot increase in 
the probability a previously evaluated accident.
    A plant-specific radiological analysis has been performed to 
assess the effects of the proposed increase in MSIV leakage 
acceptance criteria in terms of offsite doses and control room 
doses. The analysis shows the dose contribution from the proposed 
increase in leakage acceptance criteria is acceptable compared to 
dose limits prescribed in 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(i) for the exclusion 
area, 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(ii) for the low population zone, and 10 CFR 
50.67(b)(2)(iii) for control room personnel. The CREV system 
initiation logic modification will result in automatic initiation of 
the CREV system based on signals from the secondary containment 
isolation logic as an input to each division of the CREV control 
logic. This change is made to ensure that doses to control room 
personnel remain within the requirements of 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(iii) 
in the event of a loss-of-coolant-accident [LOCA].
    2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different type of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the MSIV leakage limit will not adversely 
impact MSIV functionality and will not create a failure of the MSIVs 
of a different kind than previously considered. The CREV system 
initiation logic is being modified to initiate automatically using 
signals from the secondary containment isolation logic. This 
provides redundant/diverse protection for control room operators in 
the event of a LOCA. The required logic modifications will be 
performed such that faults originating in the CREV logic cannot 
affect either the secondary containment isolation logic or the 
functions which initiate secondary containment isolation.
    3. Does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety.
    Response: No.
    The allowable leak rate specified for the MSIVs is used to 
quantify a maximum amount of leakage assumed to bypass containment. 
The results of the re-analysis supporting these changes were 
evaluated against the dose limits contained in 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(i) 
for the exclusion area, 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(ii) for the low 
population zone, and 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(iii) for control room 
personnel. Sufficient margin relative to the regulatory limits is 
maintained even when conservative assumptions and methods are 
utilized. The CREV system initiation logic is being modified to 
initiate automatically using signals from the secondary containment 
isolation logic. This provides redundant/diverse protection for 
control room operators in the event of a LOCA.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel 
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office 
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
    NRC Section Chief: Michael L. Marshall, Jr.

Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North 
Carolina

    Date of amendments request: August 11, 2005.
    Description of amendments request: The proposed change would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.12, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate 
Testing Program,'' by removing an exception that allows for 
compensation of flow meter instrument inaccuracies in accordance with 
ANSI [American National Standards Institute]/ANS [American Nuclear 
Society]-56.8-1987 rather than meeting the instrument accuracy 
requirements in ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994. The exception is no longer 
necessary due to the availability of test instruments capable of 
satisfying the instrument accuracy requirements of ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:
    This request has been evaluated against the standards in 10 CFR 
50.92, and has been determined to not involve a significant hazards 
consideration. In support of this conclusion, the following analysis is 
provided:

    1. Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed removal, from Technical Specification 5.5.12, of an 
exception that allows for compensation of instrumentation 
inaccuracies in accordance with ANSI/ANS-56.8-1987, rather than 
ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994, does not involve physical changes to any plant 
structure, system, or component. Furthermore, removal of the 
exception allowing for the accounting for containment leakage rate 
test instrumentation accuracy using ANSI/ANS-56.8-1987 has no impact 
on the initiating frequency for any previously evaluated accident. 
Therefore, the proposed change cannot increase the probability of a 
previously evaluated accident.

[[Page 54088]]

    The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are 
dependent on the initial conditions assumed for the analysis, the 
behavior of the fuel during the analyzed accident, the availability 
and successful functioning of the equipment assumed to operate in 
response to the evaluated event, and the setpoints at which these 
actions are initiated. Use of leakage rate test instruments that 
meet the accuracy provisions of ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994 complies with NEI 
[Nuclear Energy Institute] 94-01, Revision 0, ``Industry Guideline 
for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR 50 Appendix J,'' 
and Regulatory Guide 1.163, ``Performance-Based Containment Leak--
Test Program,'' September 1995, and ensures that measured 
containment leakage rates are maintained within specified limits. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident would require the creation of one or more new precursors to 
that accident. New accident precursors may be created by 
modifications of the plant configuration, including changes in 
allowable modes of operation. The proposed change regarding 
containment leakage test instrument accuracy does not involve 
installation of any new or different equipment. No installed 
equipment is being operated in a different manner than currently 
evaluated. No new initiating events or transients will result from 
the use of more accurate containment leakage test instruments. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety.
    The proposed removal, from Technical Specification 5.5.12, of an 
exception that allows for compensation of instrumentation 
inaccuracies in accordance with ANSI/ANS-56.8-1987 rather than ANSI/
ANS-56.8-1994 does not alter the assumptions of the accident 
analyses or the Technical Specification Bases. The margin of safety 
is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, 
and components; through the parameters within which the plant is 
operated; through the establishment of setpoints for actuation of 
equipment relied upon to respond to an event; and through margins 
contained within the safety analyses. The use of industry standard 
ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994, rather than ANSI/ANS-56.8-1987, in accounting 
for the accuracy of containment leakage rate testing instrumentation 
will not adversely impact the performance of plant structures, 
systems, components, and setpoints relied upon to respond to 
mitigate an accident or transient. Therefore, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel 
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office 
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
    NRC Section Chief: Michael L. Marshall, Jr.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County, 
Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: June 27, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
change the SSES 1 and 2 technical specifications for reactor protection 
system and control rod block instrumentation, oscillation power range 
monitor (OPRM) instrumentation, recirculation loops operating, shutdown 
margin test--refueling, and the core operating limits report. The 
proposed changes involve the modification of the existing power range 
neutron monitor system (PRNM) by installation of the General Electric 
Nuclear Measurement Analysis and Control PRNM system. The modification 
of the PRNM system would replace analog technology with a more reliable 
digital upgrade.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    (1) Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The probability (frequency of occurrence) of DBAs [design-basis 
accidents] occurring is not affected by the PRNM system, as the PRNM 
system does not interact with equipment whose failure could cause an 
accident. Compliance with the regulatory criteria established for 
plant equipment will be maintained with the installation of the 
upgraded PRNM system. Scram setpoints in the PRNM system will be 
established so that all analytical limits are met.
    The unavailability of the new system will be equal to or less 
than the existing system and, as a result, the scram reliability 
will be equal to or better than the existing system. No new 
challenges to safety-related equipment will result from the PRNM 
system modification. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve 
a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change will replace the currently installed and NRC 
approved OPRM Option III long-term stability solution with an NRC 
approved Option III long-term stability solution digitally 
integrated into the PRNM equipment. The PRNM hardware incorporates 
the OPRM Option III detect and suppress solution reviewed and 
approved by the NRC in the References 1, 2, 3 and 4 Licensing 
Topical Reports, the same as the currently installed separate OPRM 
system. The OPRM meets the GDC [general design criterion] 10, 
``Reactor Design,'' and 12, ``Suppression of Reactor Power 
Oscillations,'' requirements by automatically detecting and 
suppressing design basis thermal-hydraulic oscillations prior to 
exceeding the fuel MCPR [minimum critical power ratio] Safety Limit. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Based on the above, the operation of the new PRNM system and 
replacement of the currently installed OPRM Option III stability 
solution with the Option III OPRM function integrated into the PRNM 
equipment will not increase the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The components of the PRNM system will be supplied to equivalent 
or better design and qualification criteria than is currently 
required for the plant.
    Equipment that could be affected by PRNM system has been 
evaluated. No new operating mode, safety-related equipment lineup, 
accident scenario, or system interaction mode was identified. 
Therefore, the upgraded PRNM system will not adversely affect plant 
equipment.
    The new PRNM system uses digital equipment that has ``control'' 
processing points and software controlled digital processing 
compared to the existing PRNM system that uses mostly analog and 
discrete component processing (excluding the existing OPRM). 
Specific failures of hardware and potential software common cause 
failures are different from the existing system. The effects of 
potential software common cause failure are mitigated by specific 
hardware design and system architecture. Failure(s) on the system 
has the same overall effect. No new or different kind of accident is 
introduced.
    Therefore, the PRNM system will not adversely effect plant 
equipment.
    The current OPRM Option III plant design is replaced with an 
OPRM function digitally integrated into the PRNM. The currently 
installed Power Range Monitor system is replaced with a PRNM system 
that performs all of the existing PRNM functions plus OPRM. Failure 
of neither the APRM [average power range monitor] nor OPRM functions 
in the replacement system can cause an accident of a kind not 
previously evaluated in the SAR [safety analysis report].
    Based on the above, the proposed change will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.

[[Page 54089]]

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The upgraded PRNM system will not involve a reduction in a 
margin of safety, as loads on plant equipment will not increase, and 
reactions to, or results of transients and hypothetical accidents, 
will not increase from those presently evaluated.
    No change has been made to the Analytical Limits or Technical 
Specification Allowable Values. The present system characteristics 
such as drift, calibration setpoint, and accuracy envelop the new 
system requirements.
    The upgraded PRNM system response time and operator information 
is either maintained or improved over the current Power Range 
Neutron Monitor system. The upgraded PRNM system has improved 
channel trip accuracy compared to the current system.
    The current safety analyses demonstrate that the existing OPRM 
Option III related Technical Specification requirements are adequate 
to detect and suppress an instability event. There is no impact on 
the MCPR Safety Limit identified for an instability event. The 
replacement OPRM system integrated into the new PRNM equipment 
implements the same functions per the same requirements as the 
currently installed system and has equivalent Technical 
Specification requirements. Therefore, the margin of safety 
associated with the MCPR Safety Limit is still maintained.
    Based on the above, the proposed change will not involve a 
significant reduction in [a] margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General 
Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3, 
Allentown, PA 18101-1179.
    NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer.

Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego 
County, California

    Date of amendment requests: July 15, 2005.
    Description of amendment requests: The amendments are for the San 
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3, operating 
licenses, but they will involve Unit 1, which is not an operating 
nuclear plant and is in the process of being decommissioned. The 
amendments would revise License Condition 2.B.(6) for both SONGS, Units 
2 and 3 by (1) deleting the sentence ``Transhipment of Unit 1 fuel 
between Units 1 and [2 or 3] shall be in accordance with SCE [Southern 
California Edison] letters to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 
* * * and in accordance with the Quality Assurance requirements of 10 
CFR Part 71'' and (2) adding the phrase ``and by the decommissioning of 
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1'' to the remaining 
sentence in the license condition. This change would recognize that 
Unit 1 is now in the stage of decommissioning and that in the future 
any radioactive waste water produced in the further decommissioning of 
Unit 1 would be released from the San Onofre site by transferring the 
waste water from Unit 1 to Units 2 and 3. The processing (if required) 
and discharging of this waste water would be using the Units 2 and 3 
radioactive waste system and ocean outfall discharge line.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    (1) Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No. The proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated because there is no increase in the total San 
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Unit 1 radioactive 
wastewater created by this change.
    The yard drain sump and all interconnecting piping will be 
entirely within the SONGS owner-controlled area. The new design will 
have more above ground piping, which presents an increase in [pipe] 
break probability. However, the system design complies with 
guidelines provided in NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] 
Regulatory Guide 1.26 for nuclear service and with American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) B31.1. Failure of the above ground piping 
is bounded by the Postulated Radioactive Releases Due to Liquid Tank 
failures, as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) Safety Analyses.
    The proposed change will allow wastewater produced and currently 
being discharged at Unit 1[, using approved programs and procedures 
as allowed by the SONGS Unit 1 license,] to be discharged through 
the SONGS [Unit] 2 or 3 ocean outfall using the established systems, 
programs, and procedures [as allowed by the SONGS, Units 2 and 3 
licenses]. [Unit 1 is not operating and is in the process of being 
decommissioned.] There will be no increase in the total 
radioactivity or quantity of wastewater released from the site as a 
result of the change. The existing SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3 
radioactive effluent control program as required by Technical 
Specification 5.5.2.3 will still be met.
    Therefore, the probability or consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated [for Units 2 and 3] is not [significantly] 
increased.
    (2) Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No. The transfer of the SONGS Unit 1 sump discharge to 
the SONGS [Unit] 2 or 3 outfall does not create a new or different 
kind of accident. Within SONGS[, Unit] 2 and 3, the new piping will 
be constructed and supported consistent with the mechanical design 
standards for radioactive service water piping. These standards 
ensure design adequacy for intended function and service. The pipe 
routing is away from any plant system credited for either Unit's 
safe shutdown, so a pipe rupture cannot impact the safe operation of 
SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3. The yard areas are already analyzed for 
postulated radioactive pipe rupture from the SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3 
radwaste discharge piping. The addition of the Unit 1 yard sump 
pipeline that traverses SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3 does not create a new 
or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated is not created [for Units 2 
and 3].
    (3) Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    Response: No. The proposed change will allow radioactive or 
potentially radioactive waste water produced and currently being 
discharged at Unit 1 using approved programs and procedures as 
allowed by the SONGS Unit 1 license, to be discharged through the 
SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3 ocean outfalls using the approved programs 
and procedures as allowed by the SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3 licenses. A 
pipe rupture at SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3 will not significantly reduce 
the margin of safety. Any water from a rupture in this pipe will be 
collected and diverted to the yard drains, where it will mix with 
the SONGS [Unit] 2 or 3 outfalls.
    The discharge of the waste water from Unit 1 through either Unit 
2 or 3 outfall will be performed in accordance with existing 
programs and procedures. In addition, the radiation monitor and its 
interlocks will be used to control the release from the yard drain 
sump. The concentration at the outfall will be below the regulatory 
limits in 10 CFR 20 Appendix B. The requirements of the radioactive 
effluent control program as required by Technical Specification 
5.5.2.3 will continue to be met.
    Therefore, a significant reduction in a margin of safety is not 
involved [for Units 2 and 3].

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern 
California

[[Page 54090]]

Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770 
NRC Section Chief: Daniel S. Collins, Acting.

Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments 
to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The following notices were previously published as separate 
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were 
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the 
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action 
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the 
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued 
involving no significant hazards consideration.
    For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on 
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period 
of the original notice.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., et al., Docket Nos. 50-424 
and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke 
County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: August 12, 2005.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments 
would revise the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 
2, Technical Specifications (TS) 5.5.9, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube 
Surveillance Program,'' on a one-time basis, to incorporate changes in 
the SG inspection scope fro VEGP, Unit 2 during Refueling Outage 11 and 
the subsequent operating cycle. The proposed changes are applicable to 
Unit 2 only for inspections during Refueling Outage 11 and for the 
subsequent operating cycle. The proposed changes modify the inspection 
requirements for portions of SG tubes within the hot leg tubesheet 
region of the SGs. The license for VEGP, Unit 1 is affected only due to 
the fact that Units 1 and 2 use common TSs.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: 
August 22, 2005 (70 FR 48985).
    Expiration date of individual notice: September 21, 2005.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these 
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from 
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or 
by e-mail to [email protected].

Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendment: February 14, 2005, as 
supplemented by letter dated July 13, 2005.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the 
surveillance requirements (SR) for the station batteries as specified 
in SR 3.8.4.5, battery service test, and SR 3.8.4.6, battery 
performance test in TS 3.8.4, DC Sources--Operating.
    Date of issuance: August 25, 2005.
    Effective date: August 25, 2005.
    Amendment No.: 206.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revises 
the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2005 (70 FR 
29787). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 25, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear 
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

    Date of application for amendments: January 19, 2005.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications 5.6.7.b, ``Core Operating Limits Report 
(COLR),'' to add the topical report DPC-NE-1005P-A, ``Duke Power 
Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 MOX.'' This report 
has been previously approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    Date of issuance: August 23, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 230 and 212.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2005 (70 FR 
9990).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 23, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: September 23, 2004, as supplemented by 
letter dated April 19, 2005.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical 
Specifications to allow revision of reactor operational limits, as 
specified in the River Bend Station Core Operating Limits Report, to 
compensate for the inoperability of the End of Cycle Recirculation Pump 
Trip Instrumentation.
    Date of issuance: August 25, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
60 days from the date of issuance.

[[Page 54091]]

    Amendment No.: 146.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 2005 (70 FR 
24650). The supplement dated April 19, 2005, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 25, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

    Date of application for amendment: December 14, 2004.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to reflect surveillance frequency improvements. 
Specifically, the amendment removed the additional requirement to 
perform functional testing of the average power range monitor (APRM) 
and anticipated transient without scram recirculation pump trip 
alternate rod insertion instrumentation on each startup, when the 
nominally-required quarterly testing is current. Additionally, 
performance of the APRM High Flux heat balance calibration was modified 
to apply only after 12 hours at > 25% power. Additional editorial 
clarifications related to TS Tables 4.2.A through 4.2.G, Note 2 and 
associated Table references were also included.
    Date of issuance: August 29, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 217.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the 
TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2005 (70 FR 
9991).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 29, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont

    Date of application for amendment: October 5, 2004, as supplemented 
on April 22, 2005.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 6.7.C ``Primary Containment Leak Rate Testing 
Program,'' to allow a one-time extension to the 10-year interval for 
performing the next Type A containment integrated leak rate test 
(ILRT). Specifically, the change would allow the test to be performed 
within 15 years from the last ILRT which was performed in April 1995.
    Date of Issuance: August 31, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 227.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment revised the 
TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 21, 2004 (69 
FR 76492). The supplement contained clarifying information only, and 
did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration 
determination or expand the scope of the initial Federal Register 
notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendments: January 21, 2005.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the 
Isolation Condenser System heat removal capability surveillance 
requirement (SR) by adding a note to the technical specification 
section SR 3.5.3.4. This note allows a delay of 12 hours after adequate 
reactor power is achieved to perform the test.
    Date of issuance: August 25, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 215,207.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2005.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 25, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: May 20, 2004, as supplemented 
by letters dated February 18 and July 13, 2005.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Limerick Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications 
(TSs) 2.2.1, ``Reactor Protection System Instrumentation Setpoints,'' 
TS 3/4.3.1, ``Reactor Protection System Instrumentation,'' TS 3/4.3.6, 
``Control Rod Block Instrumentation,'' TS 3/4.4.1, ``Recirculation 
System,'' and TS 6.9.1, ``Routine Reports,'' and the associated TS 
Bases. The amendments support activation of the trip outputs of the 
oscillation power range monitor portion of the power range neutron 
monitoring system.
    Date of issuance: August 26, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 177 and 139.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85. The amendments 
revised the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 26, 2004 (69 FR 
62474). The supplements dated February 18 and July 13, 2005, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 26, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendment: August 24, 2004, as supplemented 
August 10, 2005.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises Technical 
Specifications (TSs) related to the surveillance requirements for the 
emergency feedwater system.
    Date of issuance: August 16, 2005.

[[Page 54092]]

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 173.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises 
the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 12, 2004 (69 FR 
60685).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego 
County, California

    Date of application for amendments: June 30, 2004, as supplemented 
by letters dated December 2, 2004, May 27, 2005, and July 18, 2005.
    Brief description of amendments: The proposed changes revise 
Technical Specification 5.5.2.15, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing 
Program,'' to include a one-time extension of the 10-year period of the 
performance-based leakage rate testing program for Type A tests as 
prescribed by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 94-01, Revision 0, 
``Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 
CFR part 50, Appendix J.''
    Date of issuance: August 24, 2005.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 198 and 189.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 3, 2004 (69 FR 
46589). The supplemental letters dated December 2, 2004, May 27, and 
July 18, 2005, provided information that clarified the application, did 
not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did 
not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 24, 2005.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and 
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency 
Circumstances)

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the 
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules 
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as 
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of 
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has 
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area 
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of 
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the 
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If 
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the 
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments 
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has 
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
significant hazards consideration is involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in 
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have 
been issued and made effective as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating 
License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation 
and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are 
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room 
on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference 
staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].
    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

[[Page 54093]]

issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and 
any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who 
wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written 
request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests 
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic 
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should 
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and 
electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are problems in accessing the 
document, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 
415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha 
designation within one of the following groups:
    1. Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the 
applications.
    2. Environmental--primarily concerns/issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the 
applications.
    3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined 
above.
    As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors 
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall 
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act 
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a 
petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another 
sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to 
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that 
contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor a representative who shall have the authority to act for the 
petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the 
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing 
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any 
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected]; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to 
[email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and petition 
for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the 
licensee.
    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).

Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee 
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: August 21, 2005, as supplemented August 
22, 2005.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments revise Technical 
Specification Limiting Condition for Operation 3.8.1, Condition C.2.1, 
to permit a one-time extension of 96 hours of the Completion Times for 
Keowee Hydro Unit 2.
    Date of issuance: August 23, 2005.
    Effective date: August 23, 2005.

[[Page 54094]]

    Amendment Nos.: 347, 349, and 348.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
Amendments revises the technical specifications.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC 
determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated August 23, 
2005.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of September, 2005.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-17888 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P