ML16342B243

Forwards Biweekly Fr Notice Re Applications & Amends to OLs Involving NSHCs for Period Through 861022.Hearing Requests & Comments Must Be Received by 861121

ML16342B243
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	11/04/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8611060068
Download: ML16342B243 (64)

Text

DOCKET NO(S) 5O-2y5 and 5O<<323 See attached list of addressees Hovember 4, 1986 DISTRIBUTION Docket File

';Local-PDR H. Schierling w/o encl.

C. Vogan sv/o encl.

PD83 Rdg. M/o encl.

SUBJECT:

DIGBLO CANMON NUCLEAR POHER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 e

The following documents concerning our review of the subject facility are transmitted for your information.

C3 Notice of Receipt of Application, dated D Draft/Final Environmental Statment, dated C3 Notice of Availabilityof Draft/Final Environmental Statement, dated C3 Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No,

, dated C3 Notice of Hearing on Application for Construction Permit, dat'ed C3 Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License, dated C3 IVlonthly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses Involving no Significant Hazards Considerations, dated r

C3 Application and Safety Analysis Report, Volume E3 Amendment No.

- to Application/SAR dated Cl Construction Permit No. CPPR-,

Amendment No dated C3 Facility Operating License No.

, Amendment No.

, dated D Order Extending Construction Completion Date, dated XXI Other (Specj'fyj B)-'lfeek1 Notice coverin eriod throu h October 22, l986.

Expiration date for hearin re uests and commences; November 21, 1986.

Enclosures:

As stated Slice o%Vuclear heackor%~eg3lation cc:

See next page PD83 CVogan 11/4/86 8gii0&0068 Bhii04 PDR ADOCK 05000275 p

PDR

,e p

I I ~

I p

p

~ V)

I, p

p p

p p I

37502 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Bi-Weekly Notice; Applications and Amendments To Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to Public Law (Pub. L.)97-415. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is publishing this regular bi-weekly notice. Pub. L 97&15 revised section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act). to require the Commission to publish notice ofany amendments issued. or proposed to be issued, under a new provision of section 189 of the Act. This provision 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 bi-weekly notice includes all amendments issued. or proposed to be issued. since the date of publication of the last bi-weekly notice which was published on October 8, 1986 (51 FR 36081) through October 10, 1986..

NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACIUTYOPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDSCONSIDERATION DEfERMINATIONAND OPPORTUNITY FOR 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 fn accordance with the proposed amendments 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 ofsafety. 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 willbe.

considered in making any final, determination. The Commission willnot normally make a final determination

~ unless it receives a request for a hearing.

Comments should be addressed to the Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records. Office of Administration. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington.

DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice.

By November 21. 1986 the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respebt to issuance of the amendment to the subject facilityoperating 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 petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and petitions 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. Ifa request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairihan of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. willrule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board willissue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, 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 followingfactors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest In the proceeding: and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding. but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.

Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding. a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of

. the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these

'equirements with respect to at least one contention willnot 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 fullyin the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

Ifa)tearing is requested, the Commission willmake a final determination on the issue of no significarlt hazards consideration. The final determination willserve to decide when the hearing is held.

Ifthe 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.

Ifthe final determination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.

Normally, the Commission willnot issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example. in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination willconsider all public and State comments received before action is taken. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action willoccur very infrequently.

A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 2055S, Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to'the Commission's Public Document Room. 1717 H Street, NW..

Washington. DC, by the above date.

0 Federal Register / VoL 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice peritNL it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Commission by a tall-free telephone call to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700).

The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the followingmessage addressed to fPrajecl Direclarp petitioner's name and telephone number, date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice.

A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel-Bethesda, US. Nuclear Regula tory Commission, Washington.

DC 20555, and to the attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene. amended petitions.

supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing willnot be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing offactors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d].

For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Pitbhc Document Room. 1717 H Street. NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local pubfic document room for the particular facility involved.

Alabama Power Company, Docket Nos.

50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M, Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and?

Houston County, Alabama Date afamendments request.

September 2, 1986.

Description ofamendments request:

The proposed changes would modify the visual inspection requirements for Technical Specifications (TS) 4.7.9 Snubbers and add a new Table 4.7-3 Snubber Visual Inspection Schedule.

The changes are based on the application of statistical methodology to determine visual inspection intervals which would meet the same acceptance confidence level as the current requirements. Also, the requirement for visual snubber inspections following initialpower operation would be removed from the TS.

Basis forproposed no signifi'cant hazards consideration detcrminati oa The change involves only visual surveillance requirements and does not alter the current LimitingCondition for Operation or thc accompanying Action Statement for the snubber system TS'L The statistical methods employed as the

. bases for the proposed TS change will not be used to alter the current requirement that all safety-related snubbers be operable or as Justification to allow a snubber to remain in an inoperable condition. Furthermore, the'onservative TS requirement to visually inspect 100% of the safety-related snubbers willnot be altered.

The licensee has reviewed the requirements of 10 CFR 50.92 as they relate to the proposed change to the snubber visual inspection requirements and considers the proposed change not.

to involve a signiTicant hazards consideration. In support of this conclusion, the licensee's analysis Is restated as follows:

(1) The proposed change willnot significantly increase the probability m consequences ofan accident previously evaluated because the existing snubber operability requirements willremain intact and the proposed visual inspection requirements willeffectively verify snubber system reliability, (2) The proposed change willnot create the possibility of c new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the change willnot alter plant configuration or mode ofoperation.

(3) The proposed change willnot involve a signiTicant reduction to the margin of safety because the combination of visual inspection intervals which maintain a 95%

confidence that at least 90% of aG safety-related snubbers are operable at all times along with the required functional testing of safety-related snubbers willprovide adequate assurqnce that the snubber system will adequately perform its intended function.

We have reviewed the licensee's analysis cnd agree with it. In addition.

the Commission has provided examples of amendments considered not likelyto involve hazards considerations (51 FR 7751). Example "(i)A purely administrative change to technical specifications: for example. a change to achieve consistency throughout the technical specifications. correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature" appears to represent the change relating to deleting the first visual inspection of snubbers after initialpower operation.

Since initialpower operation is long since passed, deleting these out-ofMate descriptive words is an editorial correction.

The remaining changes do not seem to fitany of the Commission's examples.

However. based on our preliminary review of the licensee's proposed changes: (1) A significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated would not seem probable. The same acceptance confidence level wouM seem to exist as currently exists in Farley TS's; (2) The possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated would not seem probable since no change to the physical number ofsnubbers is being considered. Thus.

existing design integrity, where snubbers are involved, is not changed; and (3) The change would not involve a significant reduction to the existing margin of safety since the actions required for failures ofsnubbers ia essentially unchanged. Therefore. the Commission proposes that a no significant hazard considera tian is in order for these changes pending completion of our detailed evaluation.

LocalPublic Document Room location: George S. Houston Memorial Library, 212 W. Burdeshaw Street, Dothan. Alabama 36303.

Attorney forlicensee: Ernest L Blake, Esquire, 2300 N Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037 NRC Project Director. Lester S.

Rubenstein.

Arizona Public Service Company et al Docket No. STN 50-528, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS),

Unit No. 1, Maricopa County, Arizona Date ofAmendment Request: August 21, 1ML Description ofAmendment Request:

The proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to Facility Operating License No.

NPF-41 for PVNGS Unit 1), for the followingSurveillance Requirements:

4.6.4.3.f, 4.7.7.f, 4 7.8L and 4.9.12.f. These surveillance requirements relate to the charcoal adsorbers within the containment hydrogen purge system. the control room essential filtration system.

the Engineered Safety Features (ESF) pump room air exhaust cleanup system, and the fuel building essential ventilation system, respectively. Each of these requirements currently specify a charcoal adsorber removal efficiency "greater than or equal to 9985% ofa halogenated hydrocarbon refrigerant test gas when they are tested in place."

The proposed amendment willchange the removal efficiency requirement from 99.95% to 99.0%. The proposed change is being requested to make the Palo Verde Unit 1 Technical SpeciTications consistent with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 83-13 and with the Palo Verde Unit 2 Technical Specifications which were previously reviewed and accepted by the ataK Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

Federal Register / Voi. 61, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22. 1988 / Notices The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated. in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no,significant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facility in accordance with a 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 ofaccident from

.any accident previously evaluated; or (3)

Involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

A discussion of these standards as they relate to'he amendment request follows:.-

Standard 1Involve a Significant Increasein the Pmbability or Consequeri ces ofon Accident Previously Evalauted The proposed change only reduces the efflciency requirement ofcharcoal adsorbers in ESF filtration systems from 99.95% to 99.0%, which is stillgreater than the 95% efficiency assumed in FSAR accident analyses. The amendment does not, therefore.

significantly increase the probability or consequences ofan accident.

Standord g~seate the Possibility ofa New or'Different KindofAccident From AnyAccident Previously Evaluated The proposed amendment does not vary or affect any plant operating condition or parameter. For these reasons, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated.

Stondord 8-Involve a Significont Reductionin a Margin ofSafety The requested amendment does not change any of the design bases for the plant. For this reason, the NRC staff has determined that the change does not involve 'a significant reduction in any margins of safety.

Based on the above considerations.

the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document, Room Location: Phoenix Public Library, Business, Science and Technology Department. 12 East McDowell Roa'd, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

AttorneyforLicensees: Mr.'ArthurC.

Gehr, Snell & Wilmer, 3100 Valley Center.'hoenix, Arizona 65007.

NRCeject Director. Geo'rge W.

Knighton.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, Docket Nos.60-317 and 60-318, Calvert CliffsNuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland Dale ofapplication foramendments:

July 31, 1986 (partial response)

Description ofomendment request:

The followingproposed change to the technical specifications (TS) is in partial response to BG&E's application dated July 31. 1986. The remaining issues will be addressed in separate correspondence.

The proposed TS change would modify the Units 1 and 2 TS Surveillance Requirement 4.4.10.1.1 to link the completion of the reactor coolant pump (RCP) flywheel inspections to the licensee's RCP motor overhaul program rather than requiring the completion of the RCP flywheel inspection by the end of the inservice inspection (ISI) interval, This modificatian shall be only for the first ISI interval. AllfollowingRCP flywheel inspections shall be performed in conjunction with the ISI program.

Basis forproposed no significant'azords consideration determination:

The Units 1 and 2 TS Surveillance Requirement 4.4.10.1.1 requires RCP flywheel inspections to be completed during the 10-year inservice inspection (ISI) interval for each unit. The licensee has proposed that this requirement be modified to link the performance of the RCP flywheel inspections to the licensee's voluntary RCP motor overhaul program rather than to the ISI interval.

This proposed modification would only affect RCP flywheel inspections applicable to the first 10-year ISI interval. Allfollowingflywheel inspections would continue to be linked to their respective ISI interval schedules.

The first 10-year ISI intervals for both Units 1 and 2 are scheduled for completion in April1987. This proposed change would result in the completion of the RCP flywheel inspections being deferred to June 1990, and June 1991 for Units 1 and 2, respectively, due to being linked to the completion of the RCP motor overhaul program.

'he licensee evaluated the proposed change against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has determined that the amendments would not: (i) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

'houghthis proposal would significantly lengthen the period af time necessary to complete the RCP flywheel inspections, the visual flywheel inspection conducted in conjunction with the RCP motor changeout in comparison to the conventional in-place ultrasonic examination is of sufficient technical superiority to more than mitigate the increase in inspection time, and as such, would not involve any significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident that was previously evaluated.

(ii) Create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

This proposal would not change the RCP design or operation.'It would provide an improved method of inspection for determining the presence of any RCP flywheel degradation.

Therefore, the performance of a visual RCP flywheel inspection in conjunction with the licensee's RCP motor overhaul program would not create the possibility of a new or different accident.

(iii)Involve a significant reduction in margin of safety.

The two-piece bolted flywheel design is difficultto inspect through in-place ultrasonic examinations. The proposed visual RCP flywheel inspections, though performed over an extended time period, would provide an improved indication of the operability and degradation of the RCP flywheels. As such. this proposal would not involve a significant reduction In a margin of safety.

Bas'ed upon the above. the NRC staff agrees with the licensee's evaluation and proposes to determine that the proposed change to TS 4.4.10.1.1 involves no significant hazard consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Calvert County Library. Prince Frederick. Maryland.

Attorneyforlicensee: Jay E Silberg.

Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 NStreet, NW.,

Washington. DC 20037.

NRC Project Director: Ashok C.

Thadani.

Carolina Power &Light Company, Docke ts Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Caroline Date ofapplication foramendments:

September 12, 1986.

Description ofomendment request:

The proposed amendment would change the Technical Specifications (TS) for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Unite 1 and 2. The proposed revision to TS Section 3/4.6.3 would extend the allowable Isolation time for the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) system steam line isolation valves.

The RCIC system steam line is provided with both an inboard containment isolation valve (E51-F007) and an outboard isolation valve (E51-

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1988 / Notices F0081). Technical Specification 3/4.8.3 currently requires these isolation valves to close within 20 seconds. The isolation time for these valves for the Brunswick facilityhas historically been between 18 and 20 seconds. Therefore, the licensee is requesting the allowable isolation time be extended to 30 seconds to provide a measure of flexibilityin the surveillance testing. The proposed change is identical to that granted as temporary Amendment 126 to the Brunswick 2 license on June 10, 1988.

Bosis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated; (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. In the September12,1986 submittal and in the June 4, 1986 application for temporary Amendment 128, the licensee has provided an analysis of the proposed increase in RCIC isolation time relative to signiTicant hazards considerations. As a result of this analysis, the licensee has determined the following:

1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofany accident previously evaluated. An analysis has been performed which determined that extcndiiig the allowable RCIC steam line isolation time io 30 seconds has no effect on the profiles used io establish environmental qualilicatlon at Brunswick. These profiles were established based on a rupture of a 10.inch HPCI line with a 50 second Isolation time.

The amount of coolant lost in 30 seconds through a break In the 3.inch RCIC steam line would be much less than that assumed for the 10.inch HPCI line break. Therefore, although increasing the isolation time for the 3-inch RCIC steam line results in a slight Increase In the consequences of that accident, a rupture of the 10.inch HPCI steam line remains the limitingevent for environmental qualiilcation purposes. The radiological affects of the extended RCIC Isolation time have also been evaluated. Design basis accident dose estimates at the site boundary are based on a main steam line break. These estimates are epproxtmately a factor of 100 lees than the dose allowed by 10 CPR 100. The dose estimate resulting from a rupture in the 10-inch HPCI steam line Is approximately 1/3 of that of a main stream line break. Given the reduced loss of coolant through the 3-Inch RCIC line, doses at the site boundary due to a ruptured RCIC line would clearly be well within limits established in 10 CPR 100. A break In the 3-inch RCIC line with a 30-second closure time for the isolation valve would result. then. In a very small offsite dose, less than one-tenth the dose calculated for the HPCI steam line break. The change In dose associated with the proposed change In RCIC isolation time from 20 to 30 seconds Is only a fraction of this small dose.

z. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident than previously evaluated because the change does not affect the method In which the RCIC system. or any other safety system, performs its safety function. Valve operability willcontinue to be ensured through periodic stroke testing to the 30-second limits.

3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction In a margin of safety because the slight Increase In the consequences of a RCIC steam line rupture which could result due to the proposed change are bounded by those of a main streain line or 10-inch HPCI line rupture. As such, the extended RCIC stream line isolation time does not present either a radiological or an environmental qualification concern.

Periodic stroke time testing of the valves will maintain assurance ofvalve operability.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and concludes the following.

1. Operation of the facilityin accordance with the amendment would not increase the probability ofan accident previously evaluated because the mode of operation of the plant is not changed. The consequences ofan accident previously evaluated are not signiTicantly increased because as discussed above only a small effect is seen in an accident previously detejnlned to have minor consequences compared to the limitingaccidents of this type, i.e.. HPCI line break and main stream line break.

2. Operation of the facilityin accordance with the amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident because the mode of plant operation is not changed by the amendment.

3. Operation of the facilityin accordance with the amendment would not involve a reduction in a margin of safety because the margins of safety involved are determined from the more severe cases ofHPCI line break and main steam line break.

Based on this review, the staff therefore proposes to determine that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration, Local Public Document Room location: South port. Brunswick County Library, 109 W. Moore Street, Southport, North Carolina 28461.

Attorneyforlicensee: Thomas A Baxter, Esquire, Shaw. Pittman. Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director: Daniel R.

Muller.

Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No, 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darllngton County, South Carolina Date ofomendment request: August 28, 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TS) for the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No.2. The proposed change revises the Technical Specifications to correct an.,

editorial error in Section 3.3.1.2. In a previous amendment, several paragraphs were deleted from TS Section 3.3.1.1 and subsequent paragraphs were renumbered. However, references to the renumbered paragraphs were inadvertently not changed, thus creating incorrect references, Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided guidance in the form of examples ofamendments that are not considered likelyto Involve significant hazards considerations (51 FR 7751). Example (i) states "a purely administrative change to the Technical Specifications: for example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the Technical Specifications, correction of an error or a change ln nomenclature."

Since the proposed change willcorrect paragraph referencing, in order to achieve consistency in the Technical Specifications. the change is identical to Example (i). Therefore, the Commission proposes to determine, that this amendment involves no significant, hazards consideration.

LocalPublic Document Room location: Hartsville Memorial Library, Home and Fifth Avenues, Hartsville, South Carolina 29535..

Attorneyforlicensee: Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director. Laster S.

Rubenstein.

Caroline Power and Light Company, Docket No, 50-261, H, B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 Darilngton County, South Carolina Date ofamendment request:

September 3, 1988.

Description ofomendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TS) for the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2. The proposed revision Involves a change to Technical Specification 6.23

37506 Federal Register / Vo). 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices ta reflect a dual role of Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and Shift Technical Advisor (STA) ifan individual holds a SRO license and also meets the requirements of the STA. The change is based on the stafFs Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift (Generic Letter 86-04).

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinatioru The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a riew or different kind oE accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The licensee has determined and the NRC staff agrees that the proposed amendment willnot:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated because this request combines existing requirements and is not intended to ehninate or reduce licensee responsibilities. It is based on an NRC policy statement which encourages use of the dual~le position. NRC requirements are not being eliminated and. therefore. there ts no increase in the probability or consequences oE an accident previously evaluated.

(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the request combines existing NRC requirement." without eliminating any already in existence. Therefore, no new accidents could result from making this change.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because operation of the facilitywith this change in place would not result in a signiTicant reduction in any margin of saEety and no NRC requirements are being eliminated, Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed changes to the Technical SpeciTications involve no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Hartsville Memorial Library.

Home and Fifth Avenues. Hartsville, South Carolina 29535.

Attorneyforlicensee: Shaw, Pittman, Pot ts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW Washington. DC 20037.

NRC Project Director: Leeter S.

Rubenstein.

Caroline Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, UnitNo.?

Dsrlington County, South Carolina Date ofamendmeri t requestr September 4, 1986.

Description ofamendment request.

The proposed amendment would revise Technical SpeciTications (TS) for the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2. The proposed revision adds to TS Section 6.13.1 a distance at which dose rates must be measured for determining whether an area ie a High Radiation Area (HRA) or a Locked High Radiation Area (LHRA).This change adopts the Standard Technical Specification definition and thus, willadd clarity and avoid misunderstanding of the existing TS.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided guidance in the form ofexamples of amendments that are not considered to involve i significant hazards considerattontt (51 FR 7751). Example (ii) states, "Achange that constitutes an additional lbnttatton.

restriction, or control not presently included in the technical specifications:

for example, a more stringent surveillance requirement The proposed change adds an 18 inch distance at which the dose rates must be measured.

This is clearly an additional requirement and fits Example (ii) above. 11ie Commission therefore proposes to determine that this action involves no significant hazards consideration, Local Public Document Boom lacatiom Hartsville Memorial Library, Home and Fifth Avenues, Hartsvtlle, South Carolina 29535.

Attorneyforlicensee: Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Dt'rector; Lester S.

Rubens tain.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket No. STN 55454, Byron Station, Unit 1 Ogle County, Illinois Dote ofopplication foramendment August 29, 1988.

Descriptfon ofamendment request:

The amendment would revise condition 2.C(6) of the license issued February 14, 1985, and would remove the Fire Protection Technical Specifications from Appendix Aof that license. Generic Letter M-10 from the NRC, dated April 24, 1986. provided guidance to licensees to request a revised Gre protection license condition and to request removal of the Fire Protection Technical SpeciTicattons. The licensee's proposed amendment is in response to that Generic Letter.

It is the staffs intention to apply this amendment to Byron Station, Unit 2, when itreceives its operating license if the amendment ie found acceptable for Byron Station, Unit 1.

Basis forproposed no significant hazords cansiderati pn determinotiom The staff has evaluated this proposed amendment and determined that it involves no significant hazards considerations. According to 10 CFR 50.92(c). a proposed amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not:

1. Involve a signiTicant 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 saEety.

The proposed revision to the License Condition is in accordance with the guidance provided in Generic Letter M-10 Eor Commonwealth Edison Company requesting removal of the Byron Station Fire Protection Technical SpeciTications.

The proposed License Condition is virtually the same as the existing License Condition with minimal changes. The revision is proposed to be consistent with the NRC goal of standardizing the Fire Protection Program License Conttitions to ensure uniform enforcement of fire protection requirements. The change requested is to the license condifion which provides the guidelines for maintaining and making changes to the Station's Fire Protection Program and is not a change affecting the design or function of a particular feature of the fire protection system. Since the License Condition wording is virtually the same. the change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated. It does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those previously evaluated. It also doesn't involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety since the license condition still requires that 10 CFR 5089 evaluation for identification of unreviewed safety questions be performed for each proposed change. With the proposed license condition. as with the existing licensing condition, each change to the fire protectian program willbe evaluated for its impact on the fire hazards analysis and the margin of safety.

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1988 / Notices 37501 The second revision requests the removal of the Fire Protection Technical Specifications and the adffition of.

certain administrative control requirements. Removing the Fire Protection Technical SpeciTications does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; the accident evaluated being the postulated fire in the fire hazard and analysis documented in the Fire Protection Report. Removing these Technical Specifications does not alter the results of the fire hazards analysis.

The Technical Specifications provide requirements for fire protection of equipment important to the safe shutdown of the plant. The proposed change does not remove or degrade Byron Station's administrative program.

Thus. a level of fire protection consistent with that currently existing willremain unchanged.

A new or different kind of accident from that previously evaluated is not created. The proposed change only involves a transfer of the controlling mechanisms for the fire protection requirements from the Technical Specification to Byron Station's administrative program. The Fire Protection Program Ucense Condition 2.C(6) and the proposed changes to Technical Specification Administrative Control Section 8.0 requires that for any proposed changes to the Fire Protection Program requirements, a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation be performed. In addition, an onsite review involving personnel from different cognizant functional areas will also be required to review any proposed changes to the Fire Protection Program.

Therefore, individual changes will continue to be evaluated for their impact on the fire hazards analysis.

The proposed change does not involve a reduction in the margin ofsafety since it is administrative in nature and does not involve a particular change to the fire hazards analysis previously documented. Each individual change willcontinue to be evaluated separat'ely for its impact on the margin of safety.

The proposed revision willensure that adequate review of proposed changes to the Fire Protection program continues to be performed.

Based on the preceding assessment, the staff believes this proposed amendment involves no significant hazards considerations.

Local Public Document Room loca!ian: Rockford Public Library, 215 N.

Wyman Street, Rockford, Illinois 81103.

Attorneyforlicensee: Michael Miller, Isham. Lincoln tf. Beale, One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor. Chfcago, Illinois 60603.

NRC Project Director. Vincent S.

Noonan.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2, La Salle County, Illinois Dates ofamendment request:

December 20, 1985, as amended by letters dated April29, August 13. and September 3, 1988.

Description ofamendment requesL'he proposed amendments to Operating License NPF-11 and Operating License NPF-18 would revise the La Salle Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications to reflect Commonw'ealth Edison's (licensee) management organizational changes both at the corporate level and at the La Salle County Station as a result of a reorganization. The licensee indicates that all functions performed by individuals meet the minimum acceptable levels described in Section 4.2.4 of ANSI N18.1-1971, for each respective requirement.

In the staffs review of the original application, it was determined that the delegation of authority permitted a Superintendent to approve overtime for other departments and permitted delegation ofauthority to authorize overtime to a lower level supervisor. On September 3. 1986, the licensee augmented its application by explicitly denoting the authority to each respective Superintendent and deleting delegation to lower level supervisors. In addition, the letters dated April29 and August 13. 1986, provided clarifying information in response to staff questions.

Basis forproposed no significant hazords consideration determination:

The original request of December 20, 1985, was noticed in the Federal Register (51 FR 3711) on January 29, 1988. In augmenting its application to explicitly denote that each Superintendent only approves overtime for their own department. the licensee revised its original request by letter dated September 3, 1988. This revision was substantial enough to require renoticing the requested amendments. This change specifies the authority for authorizing overtime in accordance with the staffs requirements.

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists by providing certain examples (51 FR 7744). Example (i) stated, "Apurely administrative change to the Technical Specifications." These proposed amendment's fall under this example since these changes are administrative ln nature.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes that the changes would fall into the category of a no signiifiicant hazards consideration determination since the changes are administrative.,

Local Public Document Room location: Public Library ofIllinoisValley Community College, Rural Route No. 1, Ogelsby, Illinois81348.

Attorneyforlicensee: Isham, Lincoln and Burke, Suite 840, 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washfngton. DC 20038.

NRC Project Director. Elinor G.

Adensam, Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304, Zion NucIear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and

? Benton County, Illinois Date ofapplication foramendments:

September 19, 1986.

Description ofamendments requesL

- These amendments willallow one battery charger assigned to a 125 V.D.C.

bus of a unit in either cold shutdown or refueling to be used to fulfillthe battery charger operability requirement of a D.C. bus ofan operating unit. This will be accomplished by utilizing the crosstie breakers.

The need for this proposed change has developed from the planned replacement of the Zion Station batteries. These batteries are being replaced as part of a program to upgrade and expand the capacity of Zion Station's safety-related batteries. The two batteries dedicated to Unit 1 (111 and 112) and the common battery (011) are scheduled to be replaced during the current Unit 1 refueling outage.'his change does not alter the intent of the current Technical Speciifiication.

Section 3.15.2.e already allows the use of a D.C. bus from a unit in either cold shutdown or refueling to fulfillthe operability requirements of the opposite unit. Inadvertently. this logic was not transferred to Section 3.15.2.f, These proposed amendments willachieve consistency between the intent of Section 3.152.e and Section 3.15.2.f and are a clarification of the existing Technical Specifications.

Basis forproposed na significant hazards considerati an determinati ant The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists

[51 FR 7751 (March 8, 1986)]. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve'a significant increase in the probability or conseguences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a

37808 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices new or different kind ofaccident born any accident previously evaluated: or (3) involve a signiflcant reduction in a margin of safety.

The Licensee provided the following discussion regarding the above thiee criteria:

Criterion 1 The operating uatt willhave three batteriee and three opeisble 125 VJ).C. buaea available to iiat all timea. Thus. there haa

.been no change in the availability or quality of the D.C control power available to the operating Zion reactor.

Since there baa been no degradation in the integrity of Zion'a electrical system, then all safety. related systems willoperate as previously evaluated. Thus, there willbe no change in the consequences ofany accident previously evaluated.

Based upon the above discussion this proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofany accident prevloaaly evaluated.

Criterion 2 As discussed above, the uae of the croaatie breakers io allow the battery charger assigned to a shutdown unit to be utilized to fulfillthe operability requirementa of the opposite, operating unit haa no effect on any of Zion'a ayatem nor on the operation conditions of the Zion reactors. In addition.

the reliability and integrity of the Zion electrical system willbe unaltered. Thus, the possibility of a new or different kind af internally generated accident cannot be created.

The aae of the 12$ V.D.C. baa croaatiea haa no effect on the generation ofany extetnat event. That ia, there ta no coanecUon between the alignment of the D.C. ayatem aad the susceptibility of Zion Station to such external events as earthquakes, tornadoes, and Ilooda.

Based upon the above diacaaaton. this proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident prevloaaly evaluated.

Criterion 3 Aa discussed above. there willbe three D.C. buaea continuously available for the operating unit and iwo buses available for the shutdown unit. Thus, the operating unit remains capable ofwithstanding a poatalated single failwe at ail time+ Therefore. this proposed change does not reduce the margin of aalety.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed changes to the Technical Specification involve no significa'nt hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Waukegan Public Library.

128N County Street, Waukegan. Illinois 00085.

Attorney to licensee: P. 8teptoe, Esq.,

Isham, Lincoln and Beale. Counselors at Law, Three First National Plaza, 51st Floor. Chicago, Illinois60602.

MCPmject Directorr Steven A.

Varga, Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi-2, Monroe County, Michigan Dates ofamendment request: June 19 and July 31, 1986.

Description ofamendment rtnluest'11iis proposed amendment. ifapproved, would revise the Fermi-2 Operating License No. NPF&3 by modifying an item in Attachment 2 to the license.

License Condition 2.C(17) requires the licensee to complete the required emergency response capabilities as described in Attachment 2 to the FermI-2 license. Item 1(a) of Attachment 2 presently requires the licensee to submit, prior to November 30, 1988, &

summary report ofits detailed control room design review (DCRDR).

An additional item in Attachment 2, Item 3(a), is addressed in the licenseb's two submittals cited above. Item 3(a) required the licensee to provide. prior to July 31, 1988, a procedures generation package (PGP) for NRC staff review and approval. The licensee submitted information on this matter in its letter dated July 31, 1988. The staH will address this item at a later date.

In its letter dated June 19, 1988, the licensee stated that the absence of approved generic emergency procedures guidelines (EPGs) prevented it from conducting the DCRDR on the schedule required by Item 1(a) ofAttachment 2 to the Fermi-2 license. Specifically, the staff requirement is that the licensee perform the DCRDR in accordance with approved EPGs. These EPGs are currently being developed by a BWR Owners Group (BWROG) with the most recent version identified as Revision 4.

The licensee is a member of this Owners Group. Because the submittal date of Revision 4 of the BWROG EPGs has been delayed by about ten months from the original estimate of December 1985, the date established in Item 1(a) (i.e November 30, 1988) for submittal of the summary report on the DCRDR. Is no longer a reasonable requirement To comply with Item 1(a) in light of this delay. beyond its control, the licensee requested a license amendment in its letter dated June 19. 1988, which would delay submitting the summary report of the DCRDR until July 31, 1987. This request for a license amendment was subsequently modified in the Hcensee's letter of July 31,1988, to make the submittal date a floating milestone based on an interval of eight months after issuance of the NRC'e approval of Revision 4 to the BWROG EPGs.

Basis forproposed na significant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). Aproposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no signiflcant hazards consideration ifoperation 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 ofaccident from an accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The licensee has determined. and the staff agrees, that the requested amendments per 10 CFR 50.92 do not: (1) involve a signiiflicant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the design of the control room has been reviewed several Gmes by the licensee to determine whether there were any human factors deficiencies. The staff reviewed this effort and issued favorable evaluations in supplements to the SER; the most recent favorable evaluation is contained in Supplement 5 to the SER issued in March 1985.

Because the original license condition was predicated on these favorable initialevaluations and contemplated a limited time interval before completion of the DCRDR, the proposed limited extension of the date'for completion of the DCRDR does not in itself change the basis for the license condition nor introduce a significant change in circumstances relating to the safe operation of the plant: or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated because the limited extension of time to complete the DCRDR does not change the type of potential accidents which might occur due to human errors during the proposed extended interim period; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the proposed extension of time does not reduce the type or number ofinstruments and controls available for use by the operators in the control room.

Based on our review of the proposed modifications, the staff finds that there exists reasonable assurance that this proposed change willhave little or no impact on the public health and safety.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the requested change to the Fermi-2 Operating License

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 2" 1988 / Notices 37509 involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Put tinDocument Boom location: Monroe County Library System, 3700 South Custer Road.

Monroe. Michigan 48101.

Attorneyfor the Licensee: John Flynn, Esq.. The Detroit Edison Company, 2000 Second Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48909.

NRC Praj ecl Director. Elinor Adensam.

Duquesne Light Company, Docket No.

50-334, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1, Shippingport, Pennsylvania Dale ofamendment request: July 25, 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would change Tables 3.3-3 and 4.3-2 of the Technical Specifications to comply with Revision 5 of the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications (WSTS). Specifically, the operational modes under which three steam isolation signals (manual, automatic actuation logic and high steam pressure rate) are required to be operational and surveyed would be specified as Modes 1. 2 and 3. Currently, these signals are required to be applicable to Modes 1. 2, 3 and 4 (hot shutdown).

The capability to isolate the stearnline is not needed during Mode 4. This is because the limits specified for Mode 4 temperature. pressure and shutdown margin already put the plant in a safe condition without need for steamline isolation.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideratian determination:

The proposed change would not involve any hardware change or change in operational procedure. Steamline isolation is not needed during Mode 4 as discussed above. Thus, the apparent relaxation in operational and surveillance requirements in reality does not result, in any real change that affects plant operation. The requested amendment does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, willnot create the possibility of a new type of accident or malfunction of a different type from any previously analyzed, and willnot decrease any margin of safety.

Therefore. the staff proposes to characterize the proposed amendment as involving no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin Avenue. Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.

Attorneyfor licensee: Gerald Charnoff, Esquire, Jay g. Silberg.

Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts. and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director: Lester S.

Rubens tain.

Florida Power Corporation. et aI Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nudear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida Date ofamendmenl request: June 18 1986. as amended July 23, 1980.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Spedficattaas (TSs) to: (1)

Raise the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint from 2300 psig to 2355 psig. and (2) add Anticipatory Reactor Trips (ARTs) for trips of both main feedwater pumps and the main turbine.

Change 1Raise the Reactor High Pressure Trip Setpoiat.

Subsequent to the TMI-2accident. the Commission's staff required certain changes to Reactor Protection Systems intended to reduce challenges to and opening of the power operated relief valve (PORV). For Babcock tt Wilcox (BOW) reactors. those changes included lowering the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint from 2355 psig to 2300 psig, and implementing a safety grade automatic ART for, among other things, a turbine trip. The Commission's guidelines were that PORV opening should occur less than 5% of the time for all anticipated transients and that the contribution to the probability of a small break loss of coolant accident (SBLOCA) frma a stuck open PORV is insignificant. While these modifications have met the obJectives of reducing challenges to and opening of the PORV. they have increased the freqitency ofreactor trips and the attendant challenges to plant safety systems.

BOW has submitted Topical Report BAW-1890, "JustiTication for Raising Setpoint for Reactor Trip on High Pressure." The Coaaaisstoa'o staff hae reviewed this report aad in its Safety Evaluation found it acceptable for-referencing in license applications. This Topical Report provides JustiTicatioa that a number of high pressure transients would not have resulted ia a reactor trip ifmore margin had been available to the High Pressure THP setpoint. The analyses presented demonstrate that when the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint is raised to 2355 psig (the original licensed.value) and the arming threshold forARTon turbine trip is raised to 45% power. a reduction in total reactor trip frequency of about 10%

is expected. Reductions in reactor trip frequency willcontribute to overall plant safety aa wellas phat availability.

Furthermore, Commission guidelines regarding the PORV, that the probability of SBLOCA due to stuck open PORV must be less than A$1 per reactor year and that less than 5% ofhigh pressure trips are allowed to open the PORV.

continue to be met following these changes. The licensee has reviewed the Topical Report and the Commission's Safety Evaluation and has verified that they are applicable to Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3).

Change 2-Add Anticipatory Reactor Trips.

The proposed change requests that the specifications for the Reactor Protection System instrumentation be chan'ged to add two new reactor trips. These new trips are:

(a) Anticipatory Reactor Trip-both main feedwater pumps, and (b) Anticipatory Reactor Trip-main turbine.

The ART on trip ofboth main feedwater pumps willbe armed whenever reactor power is equal to or greater than 20% of fullpower, and the main turbine trip wiRbe armed whenever reactor power is equal to or greater than 45% of fullpower. This request is made ia response to NUREG-0737. Item II.K2.10. and Generic Letter 82-10 dated September 20. 1982.

Subsequent to the TMI-2accident, the Commission's staff required changes to Reactor Protection Systeins intended to reduce challenges to and opening of the PORV. Two of those changes required at CR-3 were the establishment of safety grade automatic ARTs for trip of both main feedwater pumps and for main turbine trip. These ARTs are intended to anticipate plant transients which may ultimately result in reactor high pressure trips and thereby eliminate some PORV challenges.

The proposed TSs are in accordance with the sample TSs given in Generic Letter 82-10, except for the arming threshold of the turbine ARTs. The arming threshold for the turbine ARTs is based on BSW Topical Report BAW-1893. "Basis for Raising Arming Threshold for Anticipatory Reactor Trip oa Turbine Trip."The Commission's staff has reviewed this Topical Report and in its Safety Evaluation found it acceptable for use in license applications. The licensee has reviewed the Topical Report and the Safety'valuation and determiaed their results to be applicable to CR-X, As demonstrated ia the Topical Report. establishing the arming threshold for the ART on turbine trip at 45% fullpower with Reactor High Pressure Trillset at 2355 psig will continue to meet NUREG-0737 guidelines regarding PORV challenges and PORV opening. There may be

S7510 'ederal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices expected to be an overall reduction in reactor trips and the attendant challenges to safety systems with these reactor protection setpoints.

.Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

Change 1 These proposed changes have been reviewed against each of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92, namely, that the proposed changes would not:

(1) Invo1ve 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.

With regard to criterion (1) above, since 2355 psig is the design Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint, the original Final Safety Analysis Report analyses remain applicable for this setpoint.

Analyses applicable to CR-3 have been performed which demonstrate that the guidelines on which the previous reduction ofReactor High Pressure Trip setpoint were based willcontinue to be met at the higher (originally licensed) setpoint. Therefore, increasing the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint from 2300 psig to 2355 psig does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

With regard to criterion (2) above. this change returns the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint to the value for which the plant was originally licensed.

The function of the setpoint is not altered as a result of the change (i.e., the setpoint still serves the purposes of assuring the integrity of the Reactor Coolant System as a barrier against the release of fission products, assuring that the Reactor Coolant System pressure safety limitis not exceeded, and reducing challenges to the PORV).

Therefore. increasing the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint from 2300 psig to 2355 psig does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

With regard to criterion (3) above, the Commission's Safety Evaluation ofB&W Topical Report BAW-1890 concludes that this setpoint change meets the Commission's guidelines regarding PORV openings and PORVwaused SBLOCAs. Returning the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint to 2355 psig will reduce the frequency ofautomatic trips, and thus decrease the number of challenges to plant safety systems.

Therefore. increasing the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint from 2300 psig to 2355 psig does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Change 2 The licensee has made the following determination, with which the Commission agrees.

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists by provldirut certain examples (51 FR 7751) of amendmenie tha'. ore considered not likelyto involve signiTicant hazards consideration.

Example (ii) relates to a change that constitutes an additional limitation, restriction or control not presently included in the TSs. In this case, the change described above is similar to example (ii),

Adding ARTS on trip of both main feedwater pumps, or on trip of the main turbine ie a reactor control function not presently included in the TSs. The proposed TSs are in accordance with the guidance of Generic Letter 82-16 except for the arming threshold of the main turbine ART. The main turbine'RT arming threshold was chosen based on BSW analyses that have been reviewed and accepted by the Commission's staff in its Safety Evaluation dated April25, 1988. The licensee has reviewed the BOW analysis and Commission's Safety Evaluation and has veriTied they are applicable to CR-3.

Based on the above, the amendment willnot:

1. Involve a signiTicant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated. Adding these specificatione places an additional restriction on the operation of CR-3 that willshut the reactor down in anticipation of a reactor high pressure condition that could exist due to a main turbine trip or both main feedwater pump trip. The ARTs preclude either of these events from producing a challenge to the Reactor Coolant System PORV.

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. ARTs provide an additional safety function, two additional reactor trips, and offer no opportunity for creating a new kind of accident.

8. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. ARTs provide an additional safety function which increases the margin of safety relative to transients which have a probability of resulting in an overpressure condition in the Reactor Coolant System.

Based on the above, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local2'ublic Document Room location: Crystal River Public Library, 688 NW. First Avenue, Crystal River, Florida 32829.

Attorneyforlicensee: R. W. Neiser, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Florida Power Corporation, P.O. Box 14042. St. Petersburg, Florida 33733.

NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz.

G".U Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile i@land Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania Date ofamendment request: May 12.

1986, as supplemented September 11.

1988.

Description ofamendment requestt NRC Generic Letter (G.L.) 83-43 dated December 19, 1983, requested licensees to amend their Technical Specifications (TSs) to reflect changes in reporting requirements of10 CFR 50. 55 50.72 and 50.73. A model TS was enclosed showing revisions to be made in the "Administrative Control" and "Definitions" sections of the TSs. The generic letter further requested that other conforming changes to TSs be made in order to reflect the revised reporting requirements.

The purpose of this TS Change Request (TSCR) is to revise the repor'ting requirements of the TSs forTMI-1 to be consistent with the rule changes in 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. In addition, the TSCR incorporates other administrative changes affecting the same TS pages as modifled by the above-mentioned generic letter.

Administrative changes made in addition to those specifically made in response to G.L 85-43 involve the following:

a. Deletion of the requirements for submittal of certain reports or information no longer required by NRC.

b. ClariTication of TS section 6.10.2 by inserting the words "... unless otherwise speciTied in 6.10.1 above."

This is to distinguish between the records which are to be retained for the duration of the operating license and those which are required to be retained for at least five years.

c. Deletion of Specification.6.10.2.n concerning the retention of equipment qualification records, as these requirements are addressed by regulation in 10 CFR 50.49.

d. Designation of the appropriate individual responsible for maintaining administrative control of keys to locked barricades specified in 6.12.1.b.

e. Deletion of t1ie reference to Regulatory Guide (R.G.) 10.1 from Specification 8.9.1.C concerning the

Federal Register / Vol. 5'I, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1988 / Notices, distribution of the Monthly Operating Report.

f. ClariTication ofSpecification 6.8.3 to specifiy more dearly the approvaI process for temporary changes to the procedures of 6.8.1. This change is to remove the ambiguity of the current wording.

g. Deletion of the redundant listingof special reports in Specifiication 68.3.

h. Correction of format. grammar.

misspellings, and other errors from previous amendments and addition of language to improve clarity of the TSs.

i. Clarification of TS reporting requirements and for bases to be consistent with Standard TSs.

This amendment request was origina!ly published in the Federat Register on July 2,1986(51 FR24258).

Since then. the licensee has submitted a supplement in response to NRC comments concerning appropriate TS language and to ensure changes are consistent with Standard TSs. All supplemental TS changes are within the

.scope of Items h and I above.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consi dere lian determinatian:

The Commission's staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis. The Commission has provided guidelines pertaining to the application of the three no significant hazards consideration standards by listing specific examples ia 51 FR 7751. Part of the proposed amendment is being made to comply with reporting requirements in10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. This portion of the proposed amendment is in the same category as example (vii)of amendments that are considered not likelyto involve significant hazards consideration. i.e.. a change to make a license conform to changes in the regulations. where the license change results in very minor changes to facility operations clearly in keeping with the regulations.

The remaining portions of the amendment serve to delete reports no longer required by the NRC, delete TS requirements superseded by regulations, clarify ambiguity in wording, designate individuals responsible for maintaining administrative control ofkeys to locked barricades. delete out-dated report distribution requirements, delete redundant listing of special reports, provide consistency with Standard TSs, and correct format, grammar, and misspellings. These changes are administrative in nature and are similar to example (i) of amendments that are not considered likely to involve a significant hazards coiisideration. i.e., a purely administrative change to achieve consistency. correct errors, change nomenclature, and improve clarity.

Based on the above, the Commission makes a proposed determination that this amendment request does aot

,. involve significant hazards considera tioas.

Local Public Dacumenb Boom location: Government Publications Section, State Eibrary ofPennsylvania, Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17128.

Attorneyforlicensee: Ernest L Blake, Jr., Pittmaa, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street. NW., Washington, DC 20037.

NRCProject Director. John F. Stolz.

GPU Nuclear Corporation, et alDocket No. 50-289, Three Milebland Nuciear Station, Unit No. 1, Dauphia County, Penasylvenia Date ofamendment request: July 29.

1988 (TSCR Na. 1S1), as supplemented August 21, 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

Primarily, the proposed amendment would change and delete certain unit staff organizational titles or responsibilities identiTied in Section 6 of the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Three Mile Island Nuclear Statioii. Unit No. 1. More specifiically, Technical Specification Change Request (TSCR)

No. 151 reorganizes the Plant Operations department, retitles the Radiological Controls Foiman, deletes the position of Training Coordinator, and deletes'Type of License" reference from the argaaization chart. The type of license required for certaia operatars is not being changed. Rather the reference ta the required license is being deleted from the organization chart.

Basis forproposed na significant hazards consideration detenninatian:

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.91. the licensee has provided the followingdetermination ofno significant hazards considerations using the standard criteria prescribed by 10 CFR 50.92(c):

1. The proposed changes do not affect plant equipment or systems aad therefore willnot involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated or

2. The proposed changes do aot affect plant equipment or systems and therefore willnot create the possibility of anew or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated or 3, The proposed changes do aot alter functional duties and therefore willaot involve a signiQcant reduction In a margin of safety.

The Commission's staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed amendment and associated analysis of no signiTicant hazards considerations. Based upon thb review. the staff concurs with the licensee's analysis on the three standards and proposes to determine that the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

LocalPublic Document Room location: Government Publications Section. State Library of Pennsylvania, Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania 17126.

Attorneyforlicensee: Ernest L Blake.

Jr., Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Directarr John F. Stolz.

GPU Nuclear Corporatha. et aIDocket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Statioa, UnitNo. 1, Dauphin County, Peaasylvanhs Date ofamendment request: August 25, 1988, as supplemented October 1, 1988.

Description ofamendment request:

The Fuel Handling Building(FHB) Air Treatment System contains, controls, mitigates, monitors, and records radiation releases which might result from a TMI-1postulated spent fueI accident in the FHKAs a resuIt ofa Licensing Board decision in the TMI-1 restart proceeding, GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUNI is installing an engineered safety feature (ESF) filtratioa system for the Unit 1 side of the FHB.

The new system, as described in GPUN's submittals to the NRC dated March 27, 1988 aad October 1. 1988, is expected to be operational around November 1. 1986. The detailed system dsecriptioas were not submitted as part of the amendment request (i.e. not part of the separate submittals dated August 2S, 19's supplemented October 1.

1986). However, they do form part of the basis of the NRC review on this amendment.

This proposed amendment: (1)

Provides additional requirements for operation and testing of the new FHB ESF AirTreatment System which are adequate to protect against accidents involving the handling of irradiated fuel in the FHB; (2) reduces some of the requirements forthe Auxiliaryand FHB AirTreatment System which are ao longer required to protect against this type of accident while retaining those requirements of the Auxiliaryand FHB AirTreatment System necessaiy to ensure that doses to radiation workers on site and releases during normal power operation are maintained As Low

S7512 Federal Register / Vo). 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices As Reasonably Achievable (ALiiNA);

and (3) includes administrative or editorial changes for clarity.

Basis forproposed no significont hazords consideration determinotion:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifit meets three standards as described in 10 CFR 50.92. The Commission's staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed determination and is in agreement with the licensee's conclusion. Each standard is discussed in turn.

Standard 1 The proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The design basis accident for the FHB ESF AirTreatment System is a fuel drop accident. Operation of this system and the Auxiliaryand FHB Air Treatment System in accordance with this proposed amendment would not interfere with fuel handling operations and would not increase the probability of the accident. The new system would add filtrationredundancy, would nof reduce filtrationcapacity, and therefore would not increase the consequences of an accident.

Standard 2The proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The FHB ESF AirTreatment System is similar in design features and configuration to other such systems.

Therefore, operation in accordance with this proposed amendment would not create new or different accidents from those evaluated. Additionally, the physical installation of the new system has been evaluated by the licensee who has concluded that the new system will not affect the seismic capability of the building to which it fs attached.

Standard 3

The proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed changes provide an increased margin of safety by providing a separate ESF AirTreatment System.

Based on the above discussions, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed amendment would not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Boom locotion: Government Publications Section, State Library ofPennsylvania, Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126.

Attorneyforlicensee: G.F.

Trowbridge, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

NRCProject Dr'rector: John F. Stolz.

Gulf States Utilities Company, Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 West Felicfana Parish, Louisiana Dote ofamendment request. August 4, 1986 as amended August 15, 1986 and supplemented on September 26, 1986.

Description ofamendment request.

Amend Attachment IIIand Technical Specification 3/4-8.1.1 of the River Bend Station Operating License, NPF-47, to revise the provisions on maintenance for the TDI emergency diesel generators.

This revision willimplement the recommendation ofRevision 2 of Appendix IIofTDI Diesel Generator Owners Group Design Review and Quality Revalidation (DRQR) Report (submitted May 1, 1986). NRC staff evaluation of the DRQR is documented in Supplement 3 of the River Bend SER.

Basis forproposed no signi%'cant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards considerations ifoperation'of the facility in accordance with a proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase fn 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 licensee has provided the followinganalysis of significant hazards considerations in its August 4, 1988 request for a license amendment which was supplemented by its September 26, 1986 submission.

The proposed change does not involve a significant increase In the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the Transamerfce Delevel lnc. (TDI) Owners Group Design Review and Quality Revaifdatfon (DRQR) Report requires inspections that are more thorough than the inspecttons currently being performed in accordance with manufacturers recommendations.

GSV's commitment to the DRQR Report is designed to increase reliabilityof the Division I and lldiesel generators.

Thus, there Is no increase fn the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change does not create the poesfbfifiy of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the change clarifies existing commitments presently being adhered to. The Rive~Bend Station Unit 1 Facility Operating Ucense (NPF-47) currently contains a condition that GSU shall implement the TDI requirements as incorporated within the license. By Implementing the recommendatfons of Revision 2 of Appendix 11 of the TDI DRQR Report. GSU willbe Implementing a program that hes undergone extensive industry and regulatory review. (Re: "Safely Evaluation Report Re The Operability/Reliability of the Emergency Diesel Generators Manufactured by Transamerica Deiavai, Inc.River Bend Station"W. R. Butler to W. J. Cshfif, Jr.,

dated July 16. 198L) The proposed change would change the Technical Specifications to be consistent with the commitments fn the Facility Operating License.

'Ious, no new or different kind of accident scenario fs Introduced.

The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety because the change makes the Technical SpeciTications consistent with the approved program which ensures that the design adequacy and manufacturing of the TDI dfesel generators for nuclear standby service Is within the range normally assumed for diesel engines designed and manufactured In accordance with General Design Criterion (GDC) 17 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.

Thus, there is not a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

Accordingly. based on the licensees findings with which the staff concurs, the staff has made a proposed determination that the application involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Government Documents Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803.

Attorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq., Conner and Wet terhahn, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW.,

Washington, DC 20006.

NRCProject Director: Walter R.

Butler.

GulfStates Utilities Company, Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana Date ofomendment requestr August 29, 1986.

Description ofomendment request:

Technical Specification 3.5.3, "Suppression Pool," establishes the LimitingConditions for Operation for operability of the suppression pool. This amendment request adds the Suppression Pool Pumpback System (SPPS) to Technical Specification 3.5.3 to ensure it is considered as required equipment for suppression pool operability.

During the development of the Technical Specifications for the full ower license. GSU committed in a etter dated November 18. 1985 (RBG-

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / NotIces 37513 22622) to include the SPPS as part of the River Bend Technical Specifications to clarify that SPPS is a necessary subsystem to ensure opefability of the suppression pool. The NRC staff requested the development and use of limitingconditions for operation, surveillance requirements. and bases.

The application for amendment is to satisfy the GSU commitment to include the provisions governing the SPPS as part of the River Bend Technical Specifications.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facility in accordance with a 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 licensee has provided the followinganalysis of significant hazards.

considerations in its August 29, 1986 request for a license amendment.

The proposed change does not include a signtiicant Increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the change only identifies the SPPS as a necessary subsystem to ensure operability of the suppression pool. This change does not Involve a design change or physlcat change to the plant.

Thus, there Is no Increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because this change only provides explicit requirements to have the SPPS identified as an Integral part of suppression pool system. This change does not involve a design change or physical change with respect to new or modiiied equipment. nor does it involve a change In the mode of operating existing equipment.

Thus. no new accident scenario Is Inlroduced by this ciariiicaiton of requirements for suppression pool operability.

The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction In the margin of safety because this clarification of requirements for suppression pool operability significantly reduces the possibility of not considering SPPS as part of suppression pool operability.

which would enhance safety rather than reduce the margin of safety.

The staff concurs with the above analysis. Accordingly, the staff has made a proposed determination that the application involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room Location: Government Documents Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803.

Attorneyfor licensee: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.. Conner and Wetterhahn. 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW.,

Washington, DC 20008.

NRC Prof ect Director: Walter R.

Butler.

Iowa Electric Light and Power Company, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa Date ofamendment request: August 29, 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) Technical Specification Section 3.3.C to change the basis for verifying rod scram times from the present basis:

scram timing to percentage ofrod insertion. to scram timing to actual rod position. The rod scram times in Subsections 3.3.C.1 and 3.3.C.2 of Section 3.3.C would be changed to correspond directly with the rod positions as utilized in the General Electric ODYN Option B Computer Reload Analysis. Changing the scram time in Subsection 3.3.C3 of Section 3.3.C to directly correspond to the proposed even rod position 04 instead of 90% inserted is not necessary because rod position 04 is equivalent to 91.6%

inserted and is therefore still conservative. The Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.3.C would also be revised to clarify rod scram time testing based on rod position rather than percentage insertion.

gl The amendment also proposes to administratively revise Technical Specification numbering of subsections in the Bases discussions to match the numbering system in the Technical Specification sections being addressed and correct nomenclature errors in the basis discussions.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinationr The Coinmission has provided standards (10 CFR 50.92(c)) for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists.'A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (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 staff has reviewed the licensee's request and finds that the proposed amendment:

(1) Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences pf an accident previously evaluated because the verification of scram times can be based on a percentage of rod insertion from fully withdrawn or on indicated rod position from fullywithdrawn provided the scram insertion times correspond to

'ither basis. Both the percentage insertion basis with corresponding scram times and the rod position basis with the corresponding scram times are utilized in the General Electric ODYN Option B Computer Reload Analysis.

Therefore, either basis for scram time testing demonstrates the ability of the control rod system to bring the reactor subcritical at a rate fast enough to prevent fuel damage, i.e.. to prevent the MCPR from becoming less than the safety limit.The change from percentage insertion to equivalent even rod position in Section 3.3.C.3 willprovide uniformity in the basis of all rod scram timing activities in the plant. Changing the scram time to directly correspond to the proposed even rod position 04 instead of 90% insertion is not necessary because rod position 04 is equivalent to 91.B7%

insertion and is therefore stilI conservative.

(2) Does not create a possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident because neither the rod scram insertion time requirements nor the equipment or process involved has changed. Rod scram time testing based on rod position is consistent with established plant testing capabilities and procedures and willincrease the accuracy of rod scram time testing.

(3) Does not involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety because the margin ofsafety derived from the General Electric ODYN Option B Computer Analysis MCPR limits is based on verifying average rod insertion times utilized in the reload analysis. The rod positions and corresponding rod scram times proposed in this amendment are utilized in the General Electric ODYN Option B Computer Reload Analysis. Therefore. the MCPR limits defined by this analysis remain unchanged. The administrative changes proposed in this amendment are to-achieve consistency in nomenclature throughout the Technical Specifications.-

Therefore. the staff has made a proposed determination that the

S7514 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices

, application involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location.'edar Rapids Public Library, 500 First Street. S. E, Cedar Rapids.

Iowa 52401.

Altorneyforlicensee.

Jack Newman, Esquire, Kathleen H. Shee, Esquire, Newman and Holtzinger, 1815 LStreet, NW.. Washington. DC. 20036.

NRC Project Director. Daniel R.

Muller.

Louisiana Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric Station. Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.

Dale ofAmendment Bequest:

September 25, 1986 Description ofAmendment Request.

The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification 3/4.10.1, SPECIAL TEST EXCEPTIONS, SHUTDOWN MARGIN.

Technical Specification 3.10.1 resently allows the shutdown margin to e reduced to less than the normal operating shutdown margin requirements during low power physics testing provided that certain conditions are satisfied.'ne of these conditions (Surveillance Requirement 4.10.1.2) stipulates that all Control Element Assemblies (CEAs) not fullyinserted in the core be shown to be capable of full insertion when tripped from at least the 50% withdrawn position within24 hours prior to reducing the shutdown margin to less than normal operating requirements. The requested revision would allow this surveillance to be performed within 7 days of the shutdown margin reduction instead of within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> as presently required.

This modification is proposed to allow low power physics testing to be accomplished without an additional reactor trip to verify CEA insertability.

The startuP test program Includes a CEA trip test before criticalityto measure CEA drop times (reference Technical Specification 3.1.2.3). Following these measurements.

criticalityIs achieved and low power physics tests are performed, CEA integral reactivity worths are determined during this testing sequence and may require reduction ofshutdown margin as permitted by Technical Specification 3.10.1. Since the worth measurements are typically performed several days after the CEA drop time,measurements, the reactor must be tripped to verify CEA insertability and satisfy Surveillance Requirement 4.10.1.2.'1%e requested revision would therefore eliminate the need foran additional

~ reactor trip during low power physics testing by requiring verification ofCEA insertability within 7days of reducing the shutdown margin instead of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

The primary consideration in extending the surveillance time period for verifying CEA insertability is whether there would be a significant increase in the probability of a stuck-CEA during the 7-day period of time as compared to the present 24-hour time period. Consideration of the configuration of the components that are used in CEA insertion indicate that there is nothing which would cause a significant increase in the probability of a CEA becoming stuck. This Is due to the fixed geometry of these components over the 7-day period that could elapse between rod drop time measurements and shutdown margin reduction. The components considered include the fuel assembly, the CEA, the CEA extension shaft, the control element drive mechanism and the upper guide structure. Also, since the CEAs will insert upon loss of power, the probability of a stuck CEA is not increased due to an electrical malfunction.

This change is similar to changes issued to other CE plants.

Basis forProposed Na Significant Hazards Considerations Delerminalian:

The NRC staff proposes that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration

because, as required by the criteria of10 CFR 50.92(c), operation of the facilityin 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 f>reviously evaluated: or (3)

Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The basis for this proposed finding is given below.

'1) The proposed change does not remove the trip surveillance requirement. It merely allows for a 7-day surveillance requirement rather than the 24-hour surveillance requirement. During this interim. there would be no significant increase in the probability of a stuck CEA since there is nothing occurring during this period which would alter the fixed geometry of components associated with the rod time measurements.

Therefore, the proposed change willnot involve a significant increase in the probability or

'consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

(2) This revision addresses a change in surveillance requirement and as such no new failure or accident path is created. Consequently, there willbe no creation of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

(3) Although the trip surveillance requirement is relaxed from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to seven days,'here is no significant increase in the probability of a stuck CEA with the new surveillance requirement. As such, this change will not include a significant reduction in margin of safety.

As the change requested by the licensee's September 25, 1986 submittal satisfies the criteria of 50.92, it is concluded that: (1) the proposed change does not constitute a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10 CFR 50.92; (2) there is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public willnot be endangered by the proposed change; and (3) this action willnot result in a condition which significantly alters the impact of the station on the environment as described in the NRC Final Environmental Statement.

Local Public Document Room Location: University of New Orleans Library. Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans, Louisiana 70122.

Atlarneyforlicensee: Mr. Bruce W.

Churchill, Esq.. Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N St., NW..

Washington. DC 20037.

NRC Praj ect Direclar: George W.

Knighton.

Louisiana Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.

Dote ofAmendment Request; September 25, 1986.

Description ofAmendment Request:

The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification 3/4.10.3, SPECIAL TEST EXCEPTIONS, REACTOR COOLANTLOOPS.

In order to perform certain physics tests at low thermal power levels, it is necessary to bypass the core protection calculators (CPCs). This is accomplished by manually bypassing the calculators after increasing the CPC operating bypass permissive setpoint from 10 %

power to a value that willallow physics testing to take place without incurring a DNBRlow or LPDHigh reactor trip.

This adjustment is made to a bistable setpoint in the log power circuitry.

Consequently, Technical Specification 3.10.3.b requires that the Linear Power LevelHigh trip setpoint be decreased to less than or equal to 20% RATED THERMALPOWER. This provides additional assurance that a reactor trip willoccur in the event of an unplanned power excursion~hile the operating bypass permissive setpoint is set to a higher than normal value.

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices 3'7515 The addition ofTechnical Specification 3.10.3.c is bejng proposed to provide an alternate means of ensuring a reactor trip prior to exceeding the present limitfor physics testing at low thermal power levels. The CPC operating bypass permissive bistable serves the dual function of permitting the Log Power LevelHigh trip to be manually bypassed when the thermal power exceeds the operating bypass permissive setpoint. Ifthe permissive setpoint is'increased to a value greater than the Log Power LevelHigh trip setpoint specified in Table 2.2-1 ofTechnical Specification 2.2.1. then a Low Power LevelHigh reactor trip willoccur ifan unplanned power excursion takes place during physics testing. Therefore, the Log Power Level trip function may be used in place of the Linear Power Level trip function to provide additional assurance that a reactor trip willoccur in the event of an unplanned power excursion during physics testing.

Basis forProposed No Significant llvzords Consideration Determination:

The NRC staff proposes that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration because.

as required by the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92(c), operation of the facilityin 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 the margin of safety. The basis for this proposed finding is given below.

(1) This proposed change would increase the power level at which the CPC's enable the DNBRLow and LPDHigh reactor trips. Protection.

however. would still be provided through this increase by the Log Power LevelHigh reactor trip. Since ample protection is still supplied. there willbe no significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluateiL (2) Although this proposed change would alter the range of application for certain trips, proper core protection would be still supplied. No other functional changes are proposed to be made to these trips: consequently, this change can neither create nor involve a new path which may lead to a new or different kind of accident.

(3) As stated above. the proposed change would alter the range of application for certain trip functions.

Protection. however. would still be provided for over this increase. Since there willbe no reduction in trip coverage, this proposed change can not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.

As the change requested by the licensee's September 25, 1988, submittal satisfies the criteria of 50.92, it is concluded that: (1) the proposed change does not constitute a signiTicant hazards consideration as defined by 10 CFR 50.92: (2) there is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public willnot be endangered by the proposed change: and (3) this action willnot result in a condition which significantly alters the impact of the station on the environment as described in the NRC Final Environmental Statement.

Local Public Document Room Locotion: Univerisity of New Orleans Library. Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans. Louisiana 70122.

Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. Bruce W.

Churchill, Esq., Shaw. Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N St., NW.

Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director: George W.

Knighton.

Louisiana Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles ParIsh, Louisiana Date ofomendment request: October 1, 1988.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed change would revise Technical Specification 3.1.2.9, "Reactivity Control Systems, Boron Dilution'-', Surveillance Requirement 4,1.2.9.4 and the associated Bases section (3/4.1.2.9). The reasons for this changemre: (1) The Cycle 2 core will have higher enriched fuel and is therefore more reactive than the Cycle 1 core: (2) the Shutdown Margin for Cycle 2 is lower than it was for Cycle 1 (when all Control Element Assemblies are inserted): and (3) it is desirable to have more than one charging pump operable when the reactor is in Mode 5 and the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) is partially diained. Specifically, the proposed change willallow the use of two charging pumps when fillingthe RCS as long as the k-effis maintained at a value less than 0.98.

Specification 3.1.2.9b currently requires removing power to two charging pumps when the reactor is in Mode 5 and the RCS is partially drained.

The proposed change would replace this Specification with statements that allow more than one charging pump to be operable depending on the multiplication factor in the core. That is, ifthe k-effis between 0.94 and 0.98 it is permissible to have 2 charging pumps'perable or. ifthe offis less than 0.94, it is permissible to have all three charging pumps operable. In addition, Table 3.1-1 willbe replaced with a series ofTables (Tables 3.1-1 through 3.1-5) that provide the required boron sampling frequency as a function of the core multiplication factor that must be adhered to whenever the boron dilution alarm(s) is not operable. By monitoring the boron concentration at these frequencies. the operators willhave sufficient time to mitigate a boron dilution event prior to the loss of shutdown margin.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards considerotion determination:

The NRC staff proposes that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration

because, as required by the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92(c), operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any 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 the margin of safety. The basis for this proposed finding is given below.

(1) This Specification is provided to ensure the operators have sufficient time, from when they are first alerted to a potential boron dilution. to take the appropriate corrective action to mitigate the event. Normally. protection against this event is provided by two redundant alarms that actuate when the existing neutron fluxdoubles. With one or both of these alarms inoperable. the Cycle 2 safety analyses have shown that by monitoring the RCS boron concentration at the frequencies shown in Tables 3.1-1 through 3.1-5 the operators have sufficient time to take the actions necessary to mitigate the event. Since this Specification applies only to the Boron Dilution event, and the Cycle 2 Safety Analyses have shown that the consequences of this event are acceptable, the proposed change will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

(2) The proposed change is primarily a result of changes in the Cycle 2 core parameters and the desire to use more than one charging pump to fillthe RCS following a refueling or followingany maintenance that requires the RCS to be partially drained. There has been no physical change to the plant other than to allow an additional charging pump(s) to be operable ifthe core multiplication factor is low enough. The only accident that could be caused by an additional charging pump in operation is a boron

S7516 Fecund Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices dilution which has already been shown to have acceptable results. Thus, the proposed change willnot create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

(3) The intent of this Speclflcation is to prevent a boron dilution event or to prevent a loss of shutdown margin should a boron dilution event occur.

Normally. this event is precluded by isola ting the primary makeup water or by the operability of the high neutron flux alarms which alert the operator with sufficient time to take corrective action. The action statements of this Speciflcation provide an alternate means to detect a boron dilution event by monitoring the RCS boron concentration to detect any changes.

The frequencies specified in Table 3.1-1 through 3.1-5 provide the operator with suffic1ent time to recognixe a decrease in the RCS boron concentration and take the appropriate corrective action prior to the loss of shutdown margin. More

.frequent checks of the RCS boron concentration are required when more charging pumps are operable or when there is a higher core multiplication factor because there is less ttme available for the operators to take corrective action. Thus, the proposed change does not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

As the change requested by the licensee's October 1, 1986 submittal satisfies the criteria of 50.92, it is concluded that: (1) the proposed change does not constitute a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10 CFR 50.92; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public willnot be endangered by the proposed change; and (3) this action willnot result in a condition which significantly alters the impact of the station on the environment as described in the NRC Final Environmental Statement.

Local Public Document Room Location: University ofNew Orleans Library. Louisiana Collection. Lakefront, New Orleans, Louisiana 70122.

httorney forlicensee: Mr. Bruce W.

Churchill. Esq.. Shaw. Pittman. Potts and Trowbridge. 2300 N St., NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Pmjeat Director: George W.

Knighton.

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Docket No. 50-309, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station, Lincoln County, Maine Date ofamendment request: January 29, 1988, revised July 29. 1986 and August 28, 1986.

Description ofomendment request:

The proposed amendment would:

(1) Delete the definition of containment integrity in the Definitions Section of the TS since the definition appears in the actual Technical Specifications concerning containment integrity.'

(2) Remove the term "where appropriate" fram Section 3.6, "Emergency Core Cooling and Containment Spray Systems," and insert a reference to SpeciTication 3.9 for clarity.

(3) Restate Technical Specification 3.14B for clarity and delete a reference to Cycle 7 which is no longer appropriate.

(4) Correct a misprint in the description of the concentration term C, for secondary coolant activity in Technical Specification 3.14.

(5) Divide the Technical SpeciTication Section 3.15 concerning reactor power anomalies into a Speciflcation and Remedial Action for clarity, and the term steady-state concentrations is used to distinguish brief transients from ongoing conditions.

(8) Add the term "fluoride" to the reactor coolant sample chemistry requirement ofTechnical Specification Section 4.2 to be consistent with the requirements ofTechnical Specifications Section 3.18.

(7) Delete the requirement (o calibrate the post-accident hydrogen monitor in Table 4.2-2 ofTechnical Specification Section 4.2 as it is included in Table 4.1-3.

(8) Revise Technical SpeciTication Section 58 to indicate the specific revision to Regulatory Guide 133 to which Maine Yankee has been and is currently committed in their Quality Assurance Program.

(9) Change Table 4,1M ofTechnical Specification Section 4.1 to reflect the upgrade to the Refueling Water Storage Tank level instrumentation made during the 1985 refueling outage and clarify the function being tested as that part of the recirculation actuation signaL In addition, typographical enars would be corrected and changes would be made to the Bases forTS3,11,322 and 3.24 to correct cross references, clarify applicability requirements, and correct misprints to conform with the Final Safety Analysis Report.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration detenninationt The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant harard exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). 10 CFR 50.91 requires that at the time a licensee requests an amendment it must provide to the Commission its analysis, using the standards in 10 CFR 50.92, about the issue ofno significant hazards consideration. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 10 CFR 50.92, the followinganalysis has been performed by the licensee:

Much of this request consists of changes designed to clarify or simplify the Specifications without altering the actual rsquirementL Other changes correct misspelling or minor typographical errors in both the Spectficattone and Bases.

We have reviewed this proposal as required by 10 CFR S0.92 to determine whether a significant hazards consideration may exist. A summary ofour findings Is as follows.

Those proposed changes which are for the purpose of improving clarity, are mere restructuring without altering intent or requirements or which coitsct typottrsphtcal errors, which have been categorically determined not to involve a significant hazards coiisideretton.

From the foregoing we have concluded that the changes proposed wouId not:

1. Involve a significant Increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed; or

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed: or

3. Involve s significant reduction liithe margin of safety.

Hence, no significant hazards consideration exists.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no signiTicant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis. Therefore, based on this review, the staff proposes to determine that the application for'mendment involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room locotion: Wiscasset Public Library, High Street, Wiscasset, Maine.

httarney forlicensee: J.A. Ritscher, Esq., Ropes and Gray, 225 Franklin Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02210.

NRC Project Director: Ashok C.

Thadani.

Nebraska Pubac Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Dates ofamendment requests:

February 10, 1986; September 9. 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

The February 10, 1986 submittal was previously published in the Federal Register on April9, 1986 (51 FR 11230).

The September 9, 1986 submittal revised the February 10, 1986 application to conform to Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-0123). The amendment would modify the Technical Specifications (TS) applicable to high radiation areas: (1).lt would be specified that measurements for the determination of high radiation areas are to be made at a distance of 18 inches from the source

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22; 1988 / Notices 37517 of radiation; (2)",Barricade" would be clarified as including."doors. yellow and magenta rope, turnstile" or other device to impede physical movement across the entrance or access to the radiation area; (3) The requirement that entrance to high radiation areas be controlled by the shift supervisor would be replaced by a requirement that it be controlled by a Special Work Permit. Radiation protection personnel and those they are escorting would be exempt from the requirement for a Special Work Permit during the performance of their assigned duties while followingplant radiation protection procedures for entry into high radiation areas; (4) A requirement would be added that personnel entering high radiation areas, unless provided with a monitoring device which continuously indicates the dose rate, be provided with a monitoring device which continuously integrates the dose rate and alarms at a preset integrated dose, or with a qualified escort with a dose rate monitoring device who is responsible for providing positive control over the activities in the area and shall perform periodic dose rate monitoring at a specified frequency: and

'5)

Additional requirements would be added applicable for high radiation areas accessible to personnel in which a major portion of the body could receive in one hour a dose greater than 1000 mrem. These additional requirements would require that:

...areas accessible to personnel with dose rates such that a major portion of the body could receive in one hour a dose greater than 1000 mrem shall be provided with locked doors to prevent unauthorized entry.

Doors shall remain locked except during periods of access by personnel under an approved SWP which shall specify the dose rates in the immediate work area. For individual high radiation areas accessible to personnel that are located within targe areas, such as the containment. or areas where no enclosure exists for purposes of locking and no enclosure can be reasonably constructed around the individual areas, then that area shall be barricaded and conspicuously posted. Area radiation monitors that have been sei to alarm tfradiation levels increase, provide both a visual and an audible signal to alert personnel in the area of the increase.

Stay times or continuous surveillance by radiation protection personnel qualified in radiation protection procedures to provide additional positive exposure control over the activities within the area.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinatiam The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards determination exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed

, amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation 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 proposed change does not alter existing equipment or surveillances. It willnecessitate changes to radiation protection procedures and the FSAR for the sake of uniformity and consistency between documents, but such procedural changes are of an administrative nature. do not impact plant operations. and willimprove control of high radiation areas. The proposed change would thus not affect the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change does not introduce any new mode ofoperation.

and due to its administrative nature, does not involve any limitingconditions for operation or surveillances.

Therefore. the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

No safety limits or limitingsafety system settings prescribed by the Technical Specifications would be affected. The proposed changes would provide for improved administrative-controls for high radiation areas and willnot reduce the safety margin in any manner.

Sirfce the application for amendment involves proposed changes that are encompassed by the criteria for which no significant hazards consideration exists, the staff has made a proposed determination that the application involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Auburn Public Library, 118 15th Street. Auburn, Nebraska 68305; Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. G. D.

Watson. Nebraska Public Power District, Post Office Box 499. Columbus.

Nebraska 68601.

NRC Project Director: Daniel L Muller.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego County, New York Date ofamendment request:

September 15, 198L Description ofamendment request.

The proposed amendment would modify.

Technical Specification (TS) Sections 6.2.2 and L3 and Table 6.2-1 to refiect changes required to conform to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's "Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift." Generic Letter 86-

04. Specifically. the Shift Technical Advisor would be a licensed Senior Reactor Operator and would also perform the function ofAssistant Station Shift Supervisor. In addition, the "equivalency" option to a bachelor' degree in a scientific or engineering discipline would be removed I'rom the Shift Technical Advisor job description and the alternative for a Professional Engineer's license would be added.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a signiTicant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c).

The licensee has presented its determination of no significant hazards consideration as follows:

10 CFR 50.91 requires that at the time a licensee requests an amendment. it must provide to the Commission its analysis. using the standards in Section 50.92 about the issue of no significant hazards consideration.

Therefore. in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 10 CFR 50.92. the followinganalysis has been performed:

The operation ofttline MilePoint Unittia accordance with the proposed amendment willnot involve a significant incieasein thrr probabi%'ty or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated.

These administrative changes willbring the Technical Specifications into agreement with the NRC Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift. The Assistant Station Shift Supervisor function, training and kducattonat background willmeet the applicable NRC requirements. Qualifications of other staff members has not changed.

Therefore, this change willnot increase the probability or consequences ofan accident.

The operation of¹ine MilePoint Unittin accordance with the proposed amendment willnot create the possibi%'ty ofa new or different kindofaccidentfrom any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed changes are administrative and do not create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident.

The operation ofNiae MilePoint Unit tin accordance with the proposed amendment willnot involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

The proposed administrative changes do not change staffing levels or staff training.

Consequently, there is no reduction in margin of safety.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no signiTicant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis. Therefore, the staff proposes to determine that the application for amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Boom location:

$7518 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices State University ofNew York, Penfield Library, Reference and Documents Department, Oswego, New York 13126.

Attorney forlicensee:

Troy B. Conner. Jr., Esquire. Conner 5 Wetterhahn, Suite 1050, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW.,

Washington. DC 20006.

NRC Project Director.

John A. Zwolinski.

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 3 New London County, Connecticut Date ofopplication foramendment:

August 28, 1988 Description ofamendment requestt The amendment would revise Technical Specification Section 6.5.3.2 to change the quorum required to conduct a meeting of the Millstone Unit No. 3 Nuclear Review Board to four. By replacing "enough to constitute a majority of the assigned members," with J

"four"Section 6.5.3.2 willbe consistent with the information contained in the Millstone Units No. 1 and 2 Technical Specifications.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The staff has evaluated this proposed amendment and determined that it involves no significant hazards considerations. According to 10 CFR 50.92(c). a proposed amendment to an operating license involves no signiTicant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not:

(1) involve a signiTicant 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 proposed amendment clarifies the language used to convey the requirement for the number of NRB members necessary to constitute a quorum. The current speciTication contains a requirement for a quorum size ranging from 4 members to 8 members, depending on the size of the NRB. The proposed change would require a minimum quorum of four members. This change would bring the Millstone Unit No, 3 Technical Specifications into agreement with those of Millstone Units No. 1 and 2 and the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications.

Although the proposed change is not enveloped by the three criteria fn 10 CFR 50.92(c), the staff believes this proposed amendment involves no significant hazards considerations because it is a clarification of language.

Local Public Document Room Location:

Waterford Public Library, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford Connecticut 06385.

Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Garfield, Esq., Day, Berry, and Howard. City Place, Hartford, Connecticut 08103-3499.

NRC Project Director. Vincent S.

Noonan Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska Date ofamendment request:

September 26, 1988.

Description ofomendment request:

The amendment would change the Technical Specifications to incorporate organizational changes. Specifically, it would change titles to reflect recent promotione and incorporate some organizational restructuring.

Organizational changes include mov(ng the training program from the organizational chart for the Fort Calhoun Station staff and placing it under the newly titled position of Manager-Administrative and Training Services; Engineering and Electric Operations willreport to a Vice President in charge of Engineering and General Services instead of a Senior Vice President; a new position of Supervisor-Outage Projects has been created: and the positions of Supervisor-Administrative Services and Supervisor-Security are now shown on Figure 5-2.

Figures 5-1 and 5-2 have been revised to reflect these organizational changes.

Basis forpa)posed no significont hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists by providing certain examples (51 FR 7751) of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations.

Example (i) relates to a change that is administrative in nature, intended to achieve consistency or correct an error.

The proposed changes are representative of Example (i) in that they refiect title and organizational changes that are administrative in nature only. The changes are designed to assist in the more efficient utilization of licensee staff personnel.

The staff has also concluded that the proposed changes meet the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92. A discussion of the criteria follows:

(1) Involve any signiflicant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The changes are administrative in nature and do not result in any changes to the design or functioning of the plant.

Specifically. there are no physical modifications being made to the plant and no changes to the way in which the plant is controlled by the operators.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

(2) 'Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

Since the changes do not result in any plant modiTications or operating procedures, no new path is created that may lead to a new or different kind of accident.

(3) Involve any reduction in the margin of safety.

The specific purpose of the changes is to reflect the new titles and organizational restructuring implemented by the licensee. This will not affect safety margins in a positive or negative manner.

Based on the above. the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards considerations.

Local Public Document Room location: W. Dale Clark Library. 215 South 15th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102.

Attorneyforlicensee: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby, and MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue. NW., Washington.

DC 20036, NRC Project Director. Ashok C.

Thadani Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. M-275 and 50-323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California Dote forrequest omendment: July 18, 1986 (Reference LAR8M)8).

Description offorrequest amendment:

The proposed amendments would revise the Diablo Canyon combined Technical Specifications (T.S.) for Units 1 and 2 to implement relaxed axial offset control (RAOC) for Unit 2 after 8000 MWD/

MTUburnup in Cycle 1 and upon NRC approval of the Unit 2 emergency core cooling system (ECCS) reevaluation Using the BARTEvaluation Model.

ROAC is currently being used for Unit 1 only. The proposed revision to Technical Specification 3/4.2.1, "AxialFlux Difference," includes RAOC for Unit 2 and revises the existing Technical SpeciTication 3/4.2.1.1 to be applicable to Units 1 and 2. The bases for Technical Specification 3/4:2.1 willalso be revised to include RAOC for Unit 2.

These changes to implement RAOC are based upon the analysis performed

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1988 / Notices 37519 by Westinghouse for Cycle 1 of Diablo Canyon Unit 2. The NRC-approved procedure outlined in WCAP-10218-PA was used for the analysis. A heat flux hot channel factor (Fq of 2.32 was used in the analysis. In accordance with the NRC March 3, 1968, exemption from a requirement of 10 CFR 50.48, Unit 2 is restricted to a maximum F< of 2.30.

PG8 E letter DCL-86-038. dated February

14. 1986. provided information demonstrating that the results of the ECCS reevaluation with the BART Model are expected to confirm a sufficient calculated peak clad temperature margin with an Fz of 2.32.

Basis forProposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves a no significant hazards consideration ifoperation 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; (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 licensee has determined that the proposed revision willnot:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the results of the Westinghouse evaluation confirm that the fullrange of normal and accident conditions possible with the proposed RAOC limits are consistent with the safety analysis in the FSAR (Update, Revision1). The analysis is based on a Westinghouse safety evaluation using the NRC-approved procedure outlined in WCAP-10216-PA. The Westinghouse evaluation generates axial flux difference as a function of power that is used as input in the accident analyses.

(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated as confirmed in the plant-speciTic Westinghouse safety evaluation discussed above.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety as confirmed in the plant-specific Westinghouse safety evaluation discussed above for the full range of normal and accident conditions possible with the proposed change to the Technical Specifications involves a no significant hazards consideration.

The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed amendment request and the licensee's determination and finds it acceptable: Therefore, the staff proposes to determine that a no significant hazards consideration is involved ia the proposed amendment.

Local Public Document Room Locotioru California Polytechnic State University Library. Government Documents and Maps Department. San Luis Obispo, California 93407.

Attorneys forLicensee: Philip A.

Crane, Esq., Richard F. Locke, Esq PaciTic Gas and Electric Company. P.O.

Box 7442. San Francisco, California 94120 aad Bruce Norton. Esq., Norton and West. P.O. Box 10569, Phoenix.

Arizona 85084.

NRC Project Director: Steven A.

Varga.

Portland Geaeral Electric Company, et alDocket No. 50-344, Trojan Nuclear Pleat, Columbia County, Oregon Date ofamendment request: July 17, 196&

Description ofamendment request:

The amendment proposes changes to the surveillance requirements for the emergency core cooling system pumps, as stated in Sections 4.1.2.3, 4.1.2.4. and 4.5.2.i of the Technical SpeciTications (TS). The followingspecific changes are proposed:

Technical Specification 41.Z.ZThe surveillance requirement for the centrifugal charging pump (CCP) operability requirement for Modes 5 and 8 willbe changed to: "verifying, that on recirculation flow, the pump develops a differential pressure greater than or equal to 2400 psid when tested pursuant to Tech@ical Specification 4.0.5."

Tecbnical Specification 4; 1>.4The surveillance requirement for the CCP operability requirement for Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4 willbe changed tax "verifying, that on recirculation flow, each pump develops a differential pressure greater than or equal to 2400 psid when tested pursuant to Technical Specification 4.0.5."

Technical Specification 45.ZiThe surveillance requirement for the ECCS pump performance veriflcatioa willbe changed to: "Byverifying that each of the followingpumps develops the indicated differential pressure on recirculation flow when tested pursuant to Technical Specification 4.0$ :

(1) Centrifugal charging pump greater than or equal to 2400 psid.

(2) Safety injection pump greater than or equal to 1455 psid, and (3) RHR pump greater than or equal to 157 psid."

The current Technical Specifications require verification of the respective pumps'ischarge pressure rather than the differential pressure. The current TS also specifies RHR pump discharge pressure ofgreater than or equal to 185 psig versus the proposed differential pressure of 157 psid.

Basis forproposed no signi%'cant hazards consideration determinatiom 10 CFR 50.92 states that a proposed amendment willinvolve a no significant hazards consideration ifthe proposed amendment does not: (i) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated: or (ii) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated:

or (iii)Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Accordingly. the staE performed the followinganalysis:

(i) and (ii)-Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or.

consequences of an accident previously evaluated: or'reate the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluatedl The licensee has stated that pump discharge pressure is not a true indication of pump performance since it is dependent upon pump suction pressure. Averification of pump differential pressure provides'a more accurate means of assessing pump performance. Furthermore these values for the centrifugal charging pumps and safety injection pumps are consistent with those used in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 15 accident analysis.

Due to degradation of RHR pump A.

Westinghouse has determined the new requirement for the RHR pumps should be 157 psid at 600 gpm recirculation flow. Although the value of 157 psid is 8 psi lower than the current limitof 185 psi, the RHR system willstill meet its design function of cooling the RCS to and maintaining the RCS at shutdown temperatures, providing low-head injection and recirculation during LOCA conditions, and transferring water between the Refueling Water Storage Tank and the refueliag cavity. Durin cooldown operations, flow through the heat exchangers meets the desiga basis of 3,000 gpm as speciTied in TS 4.9.&1.

The most limitingLOCAanalysis is for that of a large break The new value of RHR pump head requires an additional 0.25 seconds of accumulator/safety Injection flow to achieve the peak clad temperature (PCT) turn-around. This 0.25 seconds of additional heatup results in an 11 'F increase of PCT to 2001 'F.

This PCT of 2001 'F is well within the 2200 'F 10 CFR 50.48 limit.The third function, the transfer of RCS water for refueling. is a nonsafety-related function.

37520 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices As such. the proposed changes do not (i) increase the probability or consequences of an accident, and (ii) create a new or different kind of accident.

(iii)Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety The licensee stated that the margin of safety (the capability of boron injection and emergency core cooling) provided by the safety injection, charging and RHR pumps willbe improved by replacing the imprecise requirements with those speciTied in this amendment request which willproduce more precise results by changing the units from psi to psid.

The safety injection and centrifugal charging pump heads are the original numbers used by Westinghouse in the FSAR Chapter 15 accident analysis and,

&us, no reduction in the margin of safety is being made. While a reduction in the requirement of RHR pump head does reduce in a small way the margin of safety, the results of the change dearly fall inside the acceptance criteria of the Standard Review Plan section 8.3.

The RHR pump willstill be capable of meeting design flowrequirements through the RHR heat exchangers and a 199 'F margin to PCT willbe maintained.

As such. the proposed changes do not significantly reduce a margin of safety.

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of these standards by providing certain examples (March 6, 1986, 51 FR 7751).

Examples ofamendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations are (ii) a change which constitutes an additional limitation, restriction or control not presently included in the technical specifications, e.g., a more stringent surveillance requirement; and (vi) a change which either may result in some increase to the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident or may reduce in some way a safety margin, but where the results of the change are clearly within all acceptable criteria with respect to the system or component speciTied in the Standard Review Plan....

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards analysis and concludes that the proposed changes are within the scope of the Commission's cited examples. Thus, the staff proposes to determine that the requested changes do not involve a significant hazards consid era tion.

Local Public Document Room location: Multnomah County Library, 801 S.W. 10th Avenue, Portland. Oregon.

Attorneyforlicensee: J.W. Durham, Senior Vice President. Portland General Electric Company, 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Portland. Oregon 97204.

NRC Proj ect Director: Steven A.

Varga.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-S11, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey Date ofamendments request:

October,',

1986, Description ofamendments request:

The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification 5.3.1 for Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2 in order to allow for reconstitution of fuel assemblies containing defective rods. The current Technical Specification 5.3.1 states that each fuel assembly shall contain 264 fuel rods clad with Zircaloy<. The proposed change would allow for a reduction in the number of fuel rods per assembly in cases where leaking fuel rods are identified and replaced with either filler rods (consisting of either Zircaloyd or stainless steel), or vacancies. This will permit utilization of the remaini+

energy in the fuel assemblies containing defective fuel rods.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinotion:

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether a signiTicant hazards consideration exists by providing certain exainples (51 FR 7751). The example of actions which involve no significant consideration include Example (iii)which states: "For a nuclear power reactor, a change resulting from a nuclear reactor core reloading, ifno fuel assemblies significantly different from those found previously acceptable to the NRC for a previous core at the facilityin question are involved. This assumes that no significant changes are made to the acceptance criteria for the technical specifications, that analytical methods used to demonstrate conformance with technical specifications and regulations are not signiTicantly changed and that the NRC has previously found such methods acceptable." The reconstituted assemblies willmeet the original design criteria, The analytical methods used willremain unchanged. Therefore, the staff proposes to determine that the proposed change, the use of reconstituted fuel assemblies does not pose a signiTicant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Boom location: Salem Free Library. 122 West Broadway. Salem. New Jersey 0807.

Attorneyforlicensee: Conner and Wetterhann. Suite 1050. 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.. Washington, DC 20006.

NRC Praj ect Director: Vincent S.

Noonan.

Sacramento Municipal UtilityDistrict, Docket No. 50-312, Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, Sacramento County, California Date ofamendment request:

November 8, 1985 (Supersedes amendment request dated November 14, 1984, in its entirety).

Description ofamendment request: In response to Generic Letter 83-28, an automatic shunt trip attachment has been installed at Rancho Seco.

Accordingly. the proposed amendment would incorporate into the Technical Specifications (TSs) necessary Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) and surveillance requirements for the shunt trip attachment and applicable silicon controlled rectifiers (SCRs). Specifically.

TS LCOs in section 3.5.1 willbe affected, including associated surveillance requirements and bases statements.

Bosis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As a consequence of the Salem Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) event, Item 4.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 established requirements for automatic actuation of a shunt trip attachment on reactor trip breakers.

Furthermore. licensees were instructed to submit appropriate TS change requests prior to declaring the modiTied system operable. Item 4.4 required the TS changes to also include testing of the SCRs, which interrupt control rod power.

Guidance for submitting amendment

- requests was subsequently provided by the Commission's staff in Generic Letter 85-10.

.Based on guidance from Generic Letter 85-10 and Babcock & Wilcox Owners Group. the licensee has submitted a TS change request following the guidelines prescribed by 10 CFR 50.92 for determining no significant hazards considerations. The licensee has concluded from their analysis that operation of Rancho Seco in accordance with this proposed amendment:

1. Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated,

2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, and

3. Does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The Commission's staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal for amending the

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No; 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices 37521 Rancho Seco TSs. This amendment proposes to expand TS section 3.5.1 and Table 4.1-1 to provide LCOs and surveillance requiremehts for specific components of the reactor trip system.

i.e., control rod drive trip breakers. the diverse trip features and the regulating control rod power SCR electronic trips, in accordance with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 85-10.

Adding requirements for diverse trip features. due to the addition of the shunt trip attachment, and SCR electronic trips willassure the reliabilityof.the reactor trip system is not reduced due to the inoperability of any component. Thus, these TS requirements willconstitute an additional control and not reduce the margin of safety.

This proposed amendment is in the same category as Example (ii)of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations (51 FR 7751) in that the change constitutes an additional control not presently included in the TSs.

Therefore, since the application for amendment involves proposed changes that are similar to an example for which no significant hazards considerations exist, the Commission has made a proposed determination that the application for amendment involves no significant hazards considerations.

Local Public Document Room lucation: Sacramento City-County Library, 828 I Street. Sacramento.

California 95814.

Attorneyforlicensee: David S.

Kaplan. Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 6201 S Street. P.O. Box 15830.

Sacramento. California 95813.

NRC Project Direclor: John F. Stolz.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority. Docket No. 50-395, VirgilC.

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Fairfield County, South Caroli'na Dale ofamendment request:

September, 11, 1986.

Description ofamendment request.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company requests a revision to the VirgilC. Summer Nuclear Station Technical Specifications. Design Features Section 5.3.1. "Fuel Assemblies," of the Technical Specifications identifies a maximum total fuel rod weight of1766 grams of uranium. Recent improvements to the fuel design. including an as. built density increase and chamfered pellets with a reduced dish. have increased fuel weight slightly. These weight increases will cause the maximum fuel rod weight in subsequent fuel cycles to exceed the currently specified maximum value of 1766 grams. The proposed Technical Sp'ecification change willdelete the maximum total weight limitation per fuel rod contained in the Design Features Section.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration delerminalion:

The actual uranium weight has no bearing on the power limits. power operating level or decay heat rate.

Technical Specifications on power and power distribution control the fission rate and. hence. the rate of decay heat production. The composition of the fuel is closely monitored to assure acceptable fuel performance for such things as thermal conductivity. swelling and densification. Fission product generation is not sensitive to the mass of fuel involved but to the power level. As long as the power generated by the core is unaffected, there willbe no significant impact on the radiological source terms.

Uranium mass has no impact on emergency core cooling system loss of coolant accident (LOCA) analyses.

LOCA analyses are sensitive to parameters such as pellet diameter, pellet-clad gap, stack height shrinking factor and pellet density as they relate to pellet-temperature and volumetric heat generation. Individual fuel rod uranium weight. as currently reported in the Technical Specifications, is not explicity modeled in any non-LOCA event. Total uranium present in the core is input into the transient analyses, but is generated using a methodology independent of the value presented in the Technical Specifications.

The mass ofuranium is accounted for in the standard fuel rod design through appropriate modeling of the fuel pellet geomt.'try and initialfuel density.

Variations in uranium m(iss associated with allowable as-built variations, but within the speciTication limits for the pellet dimensions and initialdensity, are accounted for in the reactor core design analyses and therefore have no impact on margin to reactor core design criteria.

The fuel rod uranium weight. currently found in the Technical Specifications is not a direct input to the analyses of either maximum seismic/LOCA fuel ass'embly dynamic response or the seismic response of the reactor vessel and internals.

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of these standards by providing certain examples (51 FR 7751). One of these, Example (iii),involving no significant hazards considerations is "... a change resulting from a nuclear reactor core reloading, ifno fuel assemblies significantly different from those found previously acceptable to the NRC for a previous core at the facilityin q'uestion are involved. This assumes that no significant changes are made to the acceptance criteria for the technical specifications, that the analytical methods used to demonstrate conformance with the technical specifications and regulations are not siqniflcantly changed. and that NRC has previously found such methods acceptable." The proposed change matches the quoted example.

Therefore. based on these considerations and the example given above, the Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Loca/Public Document Room location: Fairfield County Library.

Garden and Washington Streets, Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180.

Attorneyfor licensee: Randol ph L Mahan, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, P.O. Box 764. Columbia.

South Carolina 29218.

NRC Project Director: Laster S.

Rubenstein.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket NoL 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Date ofamendment request: March 4.

1983. as supplemented September 30, 1988.

Description ofamendment request.

These amendments would change License Condition 2.C.(34) for Unit 1 and 2.C.(14) for Unit 2 to revise the implementation date for the modiTication necessary to comply with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.97, Revision 2 Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The reason for the proposed change Is to satisfy the schedule requirements approved by the staff in its June 15, 1985, letter from E Adensam to H. G. Parris, "Issuance ofOrders Confirming Licensee Commitments on Emergency Response Capabilities." In the June 15, 1985, letter. the staff approved the implementation schedule for RG 1.97, Revision 2; however, it required that the licensee commitment be confirmed by seperate license amendment The Commission has provided examples (51.FR 7744) of actions not likely to involve a significant hazards consideration. Example (i) of this guidance states that, "Apurely administrative change to technical specifications: For example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the technical specifications, correction of an error. or a change in nomenclatitre" would not likelyconstitute a significant hazard. The staff has reviewed the proposed amendments and concludes

S'152Z Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices that they fallwithin the envelope of Example (i).

Accordingly. the staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Loca/Public Document Room locotioru Chattanooga-Hamilton County Bicentennial Library, 1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401.

Attorneyforlioensee: Lewis E.

Wallace, Acting General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority. 400 Commerce Avenue, E11B33, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

NRC Project Director: B. J.

Youngblood.

Washington Public Power Supply System, Docket No. 50-397, WNP-2, Richland, Washington Dates ofamendment requests:

September 27, and November 8, 1985, and September 17. 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

This proposed amendment, ifapproved.

willchange the Administrative Controls section of the WNP-2 Technical Specifications. The proposed amendment involves administrative changes to Speciifiication 6A.1 and organizational charts @22 1a and ltd?

1b.

Technical Specification 6.4.1, as presently written, requires that the retraining and replacement training program shall be maintained under the direction of the Technical Training Manager. The Supply System proposes modification to reflect that these programs shall be maintained under the direction ofTraining Coordinators.

Additional modifications are requested to the aforementioned Supply System organization charts to reflect more accurately the current company organizational configurations.

Basis forproposed no significant bazongas 'consideration delenninaliont The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). Aproposed.

amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation 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: (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

The licensee has determined that the requested amendment per 10 CFR 50.92 does not: (1) Involve a significant increase M the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, because the proposed changes. continue to require that the training program must meet or exceed the requirements ofsection 5.5 of ANSI/

ANS N18.1-1971 and the additional supplemental requirements as stipulated in Specification 6.4.1; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident than previously evaluated, because the training program will continue to meet ANSI/ANS requirements, and therefore no new or different kinds of accidents are conceivable: or (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, because there are no safety margins threatened by the proposed change.

Based on our review of the proposed modifications, the staff agrees with the licensee's determination. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed changes to the WNP-2 Technical Specifications involve no significant hazards considerations.

Local Public Document Room location: Richland Public Library, Swift and Northgate Streets, Richland, Washington 99352.

Attorneyforlicensee: Nicholas Reynolds. Esquire. Bishop, Liberman, Cook. Purcell and Reynolds, 1200 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

NRC Praj ect Director. Elinor G.

Adensam.

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED NOTICES OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTSTO OPERATING LICENSES ANDPROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANTHAZARDS CONSIDERATIONDETHMINATION ANDOPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The followingnotices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this bi-weekly notice. They are repeated here because the bi-weekly notice lists all amendments 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.

Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Kansas City Power and Light Company, Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc Docket No. 50-482, WolfCreek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas Date ofamendment request: May 31,,

M85, as supplemented September 15, 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The proposed amendment would modify the reactor trip system instrumentation setpoints contained in Technical Specification Table 2.2-1 to incorporate increased uncertainties related to resistance temperature detector errors identified during high temperature calibration.

Date ofpublication ofindividual nolicein Federal Register. September 25, 1986 (51 FR 34169).

Expiration date ofindividualnotice:

October 27, 1986 Local Public Document Room laaatiant Emporia State University, WilliamAllen White Library. 1200 Commercial Street, Emporia. Kansas and Washburn University School of Law Library, Topeka Kansas.

Mississippi Power tti Light Company, Middle South Energy, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, Docket No. 50-416, Grand GulfNuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County.

Mississippi Date ofamendment reouest: August 12, 1985 as emended September 25, 1985 and supplemented October 5 and October 22. 1985 and May 30, 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendment request: The proposed amendment would make the followingchanges in the Technical Specification; add specifications in Table 3.3.3-1, "Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Actuation Instrumentation" and Table S.S.3-2, "Emergency Core Cooling System Actuation Instrumentation Setpoints" to incorporate interlock instrumentation which is designed to prevent inadvertent overpressurization of low design pressure emergency core

~ cooling systems by the reactor coolant systems, and make associated changes in Table 3.3.3-3, "ECCS Response Times" and Surveillance Requirement 4.5.1 regarding response times of ECCS injection systems, Table 4.3.3.1-1.

"ECCS Actuation Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements" Surveillance Requirement 4 4.3.2.2, "Reactor Coolant System Operational Leakage." Table 3.4.3.2-2. "Reactor Coolant System Interface Valves Pressure Monitors Alarm," and Table S.4.3.2-3 "Reactor Coolant System Interface Valves Pressure Interlocks."

These proposed chanqes were requested in Item 13 of the attachment to the licensee's letter dated August 12, 1985.

as amended September 25, 1985 and supplemented October 5 and October 22.

1985 and May 30, 1986. The changes requested. in Item 12 of the August 12, 1985 letter weso previously noticed and issued as Amendment No. 7 to GGNS

~

~

Federal Register / VoL 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1988 / Notices 37523 Unit 1 License No. NPF-29 on November

8. 1985.

This notice supersedes a previous notice published in the Federal Register on August 28. 1985 (50 FR 34994). The previous notice was based on the licensee's initial application for amendment dated August 12. 1985.

During its safety review of proposed changes to Technical Specifications for the ECCS injection valve interlocks the staff noted the licensee's proposed deletion of tests of response times for

'tarting the ECCS systems associated with the injection valves, because the system response with valve interlocks would vary. depending on the rate ol depressurization during a loss of coolant accident. The presently specified system response time (40 seconds) includes 10 seconds for starting an emergency diesel generator and 30 seconds for opening the injection valve in the system.'In response to staff questions, regarding surveillance tests of injection valve opening. the licensee proposed by letter dated September 25, 1985 to include surveillance tests of the time for injection valves to move from the closed position to the open position (29 seconds). Surveillance tests of emergency diesel generator starting times (10 seconds) are presently included in'echnical Specification'.8.1.1.2.

This notice is based on the revised application from that initially noticed which results in greater assurance that the ECCS injection valves willopen within the design time.

Appropriate changes to the initial notice regarding ECCS injection valve response time have been incorporated in this notice.

Dale ofpublication ofindividual nulicein Federal Register. September 4.

1986 (51 FR 31740).

Evpirotian date ofindividual notice:

October 6, 1988 Local Public Document Room locoliotu Hinds Junior College.

McLendon Library, Raymond.

Mississippi 39154.

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE During the period since publication of the last bi-weekly 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 ol1954, 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 ol Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated. No request lor a hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed followingthis notice.

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. Ifthe 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 amendments, (2) the amendments, and (3) the Commission's related letters, Safety Evaluations and/or Environmental Assessments as indicated. Allof these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C.,

and at the local public document rooms for the particular facilities involved. A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Washington. D.C. 20555, Attention:

Director, Division of Licensing.

Alabama Power Company, Docket No.

50-348, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1, Houston County, Alabama Date ofapplication foramendment:

July 8. 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendment. The amendment deletes the fuel rod weight limitin Technical Specification 5.3.1.

Date ofissuance: September 23, 1988.

Effective date: September 23, 1986.

Amendment No. 66.

Facility Operating License Na. NPF-

2. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitialnoticein Federa}

Register. August 13, 1988 (51 FR 28993)

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 23, 1986. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room locations George S. Houston Memorial Library, 212 W. Burdeshaw Street, Dothan, Alabama 36303.

Arizona Public Service Company, et aL Docket Nos. STN 50-528 and STN 50-529, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Maricopa County, Arizona Date ofApplicationforAmendments:

July 23, 1988, and supplemental letters dated August 26 and September 26. 1986.

BriefDescription ofAmendmenls:

The amendments revised the Technical Specifications by changing the setpoints involved with the Low Reactor Coolant Flow reactor trip function, to values which are still bounded by current safety analyses, so that process noise can be accommodated without tripping the reactor.

Dote ofIssuance: October 7, 1986.

Effective Date: October 7, 1986.

Amendment Nos, 10 and S.

Facility Operating License Nos.:

NPF-41 and NPF-Stt Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofInitialNoticein Federal Registers September 2, 1988 (51 FR 31179).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 7, 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments were received: No.

Local Public Document Room Location: Phoenix Public Library,,

Business. Science and Technology Department, 12 East McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

Arkansas Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas NucIear One, Unit No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas Date ofopplication foramendment..

April30, 1988, as supplemented July 31.

1988.

Briefdescription ofomendment: The amendment provides changes to ANO-1 Technical Specifications 3.14 and 4.12 related to two new thermal hydrogen recombiners to replace the existing hydrogen purge system.

Dote ofissuance: October 7, 1988..

Effective dale: October 7, 1986, and shall be implemented no later than November 18, 1988.

Amendment Na, 102.

Facility Operating License No. DPR-St. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. June 4. 1988 (S1 FR 20367).

Since the initialnotice, the licensee submitted a supplement dated July 31.

1986, which responded to the Commission's request for additional information. This Information:did not change the original application in any way. and therefore did not warrant renoticing.

97524 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No, 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 7, 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room locationi Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas 72801.

Carolina Power 8i Light Company, Dockets Nos.60-325 and 60-324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Bnuewick County, North Carolina Dote ofapplication foramendment:

May 6, 1985 as supplemented February 19, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendments change the Technical Specifications (TS) by modifying the surveillance requirements in TS Table 4.3.1-1 for the Turbine Stop Valve-Closure and Turbine Control Valve Fast Closure, Control Oil Pressure-Low functions of the Reactor Protection System. The amendments eliminate the need to test these functions when thermal power is below 3 ofrated power.

Dote ofissuancei October 1, 1986.

Effecti ve dale: October 1, 1986.

Amendment No.i 100 and 129.

Facility Operating Licenses Nos.

DPR-71 and DPR62. Amendment revised the Technical Speci%'cations.

Dote ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. June 19, 1985 (50 FR 25484). The February 19. 1986 submittal provided additional clarifying information and therefore did not change the determination of the initial Federal Register Notice.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 1, 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Southport. Brunswick County Library. 109 W. Moore Street. Southport.

North Carolina 28481.

Consolidated Edison Company ofNew York, Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, Westchester County, New York Date ofapplicotion for amendment:

May 9, 1968.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment revises the Technical Specifications to correct two typographical errors in Specification 3.10.2. Power Distribution Limits which were issued in Amendment No. 110.

Dote ofissuoncei October 6. 1986.

Effective dole: Immediately.

Amendment No, 118.

Foci%'ties Operating License No.

DPR-28: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. July 18, 1988 (51 FR 25768).

The Commission's related evaluation ofthe amendment is contained ia a letter dated October 8, 1988.

No significont hazards consideration comments recei vedi No Local Public Document Room locotion: White Plains Public Library, 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York. 10610.

100 Duke Power Company, Docket Nos,60-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina Dote ofapplication foramendments:

September 10, 1985, as supplemented November 27, 198S, January 7 and July 31, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments lower the Low-Low Reactor Trip Signal for the steam generator level when the reactor is operating above 30% power level.

Date ofissuance: September 30, 1986.

Effective date: September 30, 1986.

Amendment Nos.i 13 and S.

Foci lity Operating License Nos. NPF-S5 and NPF-52. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. August 27, 1988 (51 FR 30564)

~

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 1988.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room

'ocation:

York County Library, 138 East Black Street, Rock Hill,South Carolina 29730.

Duke Power Company, et al., Docket Nos.58-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 aad 2, York County, South Caroliaa Dote ofopplication foramendments:

July 15, 1986, as supplemented July 24, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments change the Technical Specifications related to application of a positive moderator temperature coefficient and to reflect the Cycle 2 refueling for Unit 1.

Dale ofissuance: October 1, 1988.

Effective dote: October 1, 1986.

Amendment Nos.: 14 and 6.

Faci%'ty Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52 Amendments revised the Technical Speciflcations.

Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. August 27, 1986 (61 FR 30587).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments fs contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 1, 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: York County Library, 138 East Black Street, Rock Hill,South Carolina 29730.

Duke Power Company, et al., Docket No. 50-413, Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1, York County, South Carolina Date ofapplication foromendmenti June 6, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment updates and changes a

license condition to allow extension of time for the resolution of the accumulator tank instrumentation issue.

Date ofissuancei October 6, 1986.

Effective date: October 6, 1986.

Amendment No, 15.

Pocility Operating License No. NPF-

35. Amendment revised the Operating License.

Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. August 13, 1986 (51 FR 28996).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 6, 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: York County Library, 138 East Black Street, Rock Hill,South Carolina 29730.

Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Dotes ofapplications for amendments:

July 15, 1985, March 12, May 14, and July 14. 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments change Technical Specification Table 3.6-2 related to containment isolation valves.

Dote ofissuance: September 29, 1986.

Effective dote: September 29. 1988.

Amendment Nos.i 63 and 44.

Foci%'ty Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. August 27, 1986 (51 FR 30569 and 30571).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

LocolPublic Document Room location. Atkins Library, University of North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC Station), North Carolina 28223.

Federal Register / Vo). 51, No. 204 / Wednesday; October 22, 1986 / Notices Duke Power Com pany, Docket Nos. 50-389 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County. North Carolina Date ofapplication foramendmenls:

Auqust 19, 1985, as supplemented April 17, 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments change the Technical Specifications (TS) to revise the limiting condition for operation action statements to increase the time allowance for restoration of boron concentration in an accumulator that is out of specification, to eliminate verification of boron concentration aEter a greater than 1% volume increase from the normal makeup source, and to reflect these changes in the TS Bases.

Dale ofissuonce: September 30, 1986.

Effective date: September 30, 198tL Amendment Nost 64 and 45 FocilityOperating License Nos. NPF-9 ond NPF-l7. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Dale ofinitialnolicein Fedcraf Register. August 27. 1988 (51 FR 30589).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Boom location: Atkins Library, University of North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC Station), North Carolina 28223.

Florida Power and Light Company, et aL.

Docket No. 50-389, SL Lucio Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucia County, Florida Dale ofopplicotion ofamendment July 22, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment The amendment deleted the reference to the maximum enrichment ofrelaad fuel in Technical Specification SDA Dole oflssuonce: September 30, 198tL Effective Date: September 30, 198th Amendment No, 15.

Facility Operating License No. NPF-1tL Amendment revised the Tcchnical Specifications.

Date ofiniliolnoticcin Federal Register. August 27. 1986 (51 FR 30581 at 30572).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in e Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 1986 No significant hazards consideratton comments received: Na Loco/ Public Document Boom location: Indian River Junior Colfegc Library, 3209 Virglna Avenue, FL Piercc,

'lorida.

GPU Nuclear Corporation, et aL, Docket No. 50-289, Three MileIsland Nuclear Station, Unit Na. 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania Date ofopplication foramendment June 26, 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendment The amendment deletes one smoke detector located in the AuxiliaryBuilding at elevation 281 feet in the cable gallery area (Fire Zone 4) ~ The minimum number of required operable smoke detectors (i.e., two) in this Qre zone remains unchanged. Besides the detector being removed. there are currently three other detectors in'this fire zone.

Date ofissuance: October 1, 1986.

Effective date: October 1, 198tL Amendment No. 121.

Facility Operaling License Na DPR-50 Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dale ofinitiainotice in Federal Register. July 30, 1988 (S1 FR 27284).

The Commission's related evaluatloa of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 1. 198tk No significant hazards consideration comments received: No Local Public Document Room location. Government Publicationa Section. State LibraryofPennsylvania, Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania 1712tL Iowa Electric Light and Power Company Docket No. 50-331, Duanc Arnold Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa Datejfapplicatiaa foramendment:

December 6, 1985.

BriefDescription ofamendment This amendment revises the DAECTechnical Specifications to incorporate containment isolation valves for the loop B Jet Pump Sample line hr Technical Specification Tables 3.7-2 and 3 7W Dote ofissuance: October 8'198tL Effective date: October 8, 198L Amendmetit Na 138 Facility Operating License Na DPR-

49. Amendment revised the Technical SpeciTications Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. February 28, 1986 (51 FR 6825).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment Is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 8, 1988.

No significant hazards consideratioiv comments received: No.

Loco/ Public Document Boom locotiom Cedar Rapids Public Library; 500 First Street, S.E; Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402.

Mississippi Power Si Light Company, Middle South Energy, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association.

Docket No. 50-418, Grand GulfNuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County.

Mississippi Dale ofopplication foramendment August 12, 198S, as amended September

25. 1985 and as supplemented October 5 and October 22. 1985 and May 30. 1986.

March 21. 1988, as supplemented May 30,19M, and Juiy15,198tL Briefdescription ofamendment. The amendment would change Techniak Spccifications to reflect modifications af instrumentation for the hw pressure emergency core cooling systems. the automatic depressurization system andi the seismic monitoring system.

Dote ofissuonca October 8, 1985, Effective date: Changes to the Technical Specification pages are effective when the equipmeM modifications necessitating the changes are completed and the affected systema are made operable, but not later tham startup followingthe first refueling outage.

Amendment No. 20.

FacilityOperating License Na NPF-2R This amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitialnoliceinFcdesa?

Register. April23, 1988 (51 FR 1540+

August 27, 1988 (51 FR 30577);

September 4. 1988 (51 FR 317~

The Commission's related evafuatioa of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 6, 198tL No significant hazards consideratioa comments rcceiveh No.

Local Public Documeat Boon location: Hinds Junior College.

McLendon Library, Raymond.

Mississippi 39154.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporatforr, Docket No. 50-220, Mne MilePoint Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego County, New YoCk Data ofamendmerrt mquest. January 3, 198tL Briefdescription ofamendarcat The amendment modifies Technical Specification Table 3.tL14-% cnd Notes.

forTable 3.8.14-1 to include the additioa of an explanatory phrase to clarifythe intention of thc phrase "at all times.

Date.ofissuaaca October 8. 198L Effective dale: October 8, 198$.

Amendment Na. NL Facility Operating License Na DPR-tU. Amendment revised the Technh.'B Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein FcdorcI.

Register. May 7, 1988 (51 FR 16930)".

37526 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No.'204 / wednesday, October 22, 1988 / Notices The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 6. 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Pub'lie Document Room location: State University College at Oswego, Penfield Library Documents.

Oswego, New York 13120.

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Dales ofapplication foramendment:

April30. June 19, July 25, September 10.

and September 25, 1980.

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment revised the Susquehanna Unit 2 Technical Specifications to support the operation of this unit at full rated power during Cycle 2 operation.

This amendment revised the Technical Specifications in the followingareas: (1)

Established operating limits for Exxon and the remaining GE fuel, (2) established new Average Power Range Monitor (APRM) setpoints. (3) reflected the replacement of approximately 42 percent of the core with ENC 9x9 fuel, and (4) modified the bases section.

Dote ofissuonce: October 3, 1980.

Effective date: Upon startup following the Unit 2 first refueling outage.

Amendmenl No, 31.

Facility Operaling License No. NPF-22: Ainendment revised the Techncial Specifications.

Date ofinitialnolicein Federal Register. August 13. 1980 (S1 FR 29009).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 3, 1980.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room localion: Osterhout Free Library.

Reference Department, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701.

Portland General Electric Company, et alDocket No. 50-S44, Trojan Nuciear Plant, Columbia County, Oregon Date ofapplication foramendment:

July.12, 1980.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment rewords the Surveillance Requirements and Bases to reflect that the Trojan ultimate heat sink is the Columbia River with the Cooling Tower basin serving as the backup.

Dale ofissuance: September 30, 198jt.

Effective date: September 30. 1980.

Amendment No.: 120.

Facilities Operating License No. NPF-I:Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitiolnolicein Federal Register. July 30, 1980 (51 FR 27288).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30.

1988.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Multnomah County Library.

801 S. W. 10th Avenue. Portland, Oregon.

Power Authority ofThe State of New York. Docket No. 50-288, Indian Point Unit No. S, Westchester County, New York Dote ofapplicolion foramendment:

April30, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment revised the Technical SpeciTications to add anticipatory reactor trip upon turbine trip to a list of other reactor trips.

Dote ofissuonce: October 6, 1980.

Effective dole: October 8, 1980.

Amendment No, 60.

Facilities Operating License No.

DPR-M Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofiniliolnoticein Federal Register. July 18, 1986 (S1 FR 25771).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 8, 1988.

No signiTicant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room locolion: White Plains Public Library, 100 Martine Avenue. White Plains, New York. 10610.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, IInits 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Dote ofapplication for amendments:

May 25, 1984, ae supplemented July 11, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments delete the requirement to perform the airlock door seal leakage test by the pressure decay method for 15 minutes and add a requirem'ent that the seal leakage be determined by precision flowmethods for at least two minutes.

Date ofissuonce: October 2, 1980.

Effective date. October 2, 1980.

Amendment Nos, 48 and 40.

FocilityOperating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-78. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinilialnolicein Federal Register. September 28, 1984 (49 FR 38410).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 2. 1980.

No significant hazards consideration comments received.No.

Loco/Public Documenl Room location: Chattanooga-Hamilton County Bicentennial Library, 1001 Broad Street.

Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket No. 50-338, North Anna Power Station, Unit No. 1, Louise County, Virginia Date ofapplication foromendmenl:

July 11, 1980.

Briefdescription ofomendmenl: This amendment reinstates TS 3.4.9.1.C for NA-1 which was deleted by administrative error from the NA-1 TS in a previous amendment. TS 3.4.9.1.C specifies the necesshry restrictions on temperature changes during inservice hydrostatic and leak testing surveillance.

Date ofissuonce: September 26, 1986.

Effective date: September 20, 1980.

Amendmenl No, 00.

Facility Operating License No. NPF~:

Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnolicein Federal Register. August 13, 1980 (51 FR 29015).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 28.

1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room locations: Board of Supervisors Office, Louisa County Courthouse, Louisa, Virginia 23093, and the Alderman Library, Manuscripts Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Virginia 22901.

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND FINAL DETERMINATIONOF NO SIGNIFICANTHAZARDS CONSIDERATIONAND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING (EXIGENTOR EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES)

During the period since publication of the last bi-weekly notice, the Commission hae 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, whicFi are set forth in the license amendment.

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices 3752'P 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 30.day Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for 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 facilityof 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.

ln circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example. in derating or shutdown ofa 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 air opportunity to provide forpublic comment on its no significant hazards determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. Ifthere haa been some time forpublic comment but less than 30 days. the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. Ifcomments have beeri requested, it is so stated. In either event.

the State has bees 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 ofany required hearing. where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is fnvolved.

The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and'has made a Anal determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this actfoa Accordingly. the amendments have baca issued and made dfective as indicated.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion fn accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmenta)

Impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. Ifthe Commission haa prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and haa 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. Allof these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street. NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room for the particular facilityinvolved.

A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attentioir.

Director, Division of Licensing.

The Commission Is also offering ari opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendments. By November 21. 1986, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facilityoperating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate aa a party in the proceeding must file s written petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and petitions 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. Ifa request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, willrule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board willissue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714. 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 petitfon should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted-with particular reference to the followingfactors: (2) The nature ofthe petitioner'a right under the Act fobe made a party to the proceeding, (2) The nature and extent of the petitioner'a property, financial. or other interest Iir the proceeding, and (3) The possible effect of any order which may be entered fn the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to

'hich petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificit requirements described above.

Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the flrst prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include e list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shell be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least ona contention willnot 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 fullyin the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

Since the Commission haa made a final determination that the amendment fnvolves no signiTicant hazards consideration. ifa hearing is requested, it willnot stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment fa in effect.

A request for a heahng or a petftioir for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, UB, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington. DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date.

Where petitions are filed during the I'ast ten (10) days of the notice period. it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Commlasfos by a toll-free te)ephone call to Western Unfos at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 842-6700).

The Western Union operat'or'should be gives Datagram Identificatio Number 3737and the followingniessage addressed te(Project Director@

87528 Federal Register / Vol, 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22. 1986 / Notices petitioner's name and telephone number, date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of&isFederal Register notice.

A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel Bethesda, V.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to the attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings ofpetitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing willnot be entertained absent a determ'ination by the Commission, the presiding oflicer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-

(v) and 2.714(d).

Duke Power Company, Dockets Nos. 50-289, 50-270 and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Dote ofapplication foramendments.

June 30, 1988, as superseded September

? 1986.

Briefdescri ption ofamendments:

These amendments revise the Station's common Technical Specifications (TSs) to support the operation of Oconee Unit 2 at fullrated power during the upcoming Cycle 9. In the initialFederal Register notice published September 11.

1986 (51 FR 32383) ~ it was stated that the proposed amendments would revise the TSs in four areas (core protection safety limits, protective system maximum allowable setpoints. rod position limits and power imbalance limits). These amendments revise only the power imbalance limits.

Dote ofissuance: October 8, 1988.

Effective date: October 8, 1988.

Amendments Nos.: 151. 151 and 148.

Facility Operating Licenses Nos.

DPR-J8, DPR-47 and DPR55.

Amendments revised the Technical SpeciTica tions.

Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration: Yes, published in the Federal Register on September 11. 1988 (51 FR 32383).

Comments Received: No.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments, finding of exigent circumstances, and final determination of no significant hazards consideration are contained in 8 Safety Evaluation dated October 8, 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Attorneyforlicensee:

J. Michael McGarry, III,Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds. 1200 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Local Public Document Room

, location: Oconee County Library, 501 West.Southbroad Street, Walhalla, South Caroline 29691.

Gulf States Utilities Company, Docket No. M-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 West Fellclana Parish, Louisiana Date ofApplicationforamendment:

September 17, 1988 and supplemented by letter dated September 19. 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment changed Technical Specifications Table 3.8.4-1 to permit Valve IE51'MOVF076 not to be required to be operable through October 4, 1986, thus not requiring Valve IE51'MOVF064 to be shut and permitting RCIC to be operable.

Date ofIssuance: October 9, 1988.

Effective Date: September 19, 1988.

Amendment No, 2.

Fa'cility Operating License No. NPF-4t7t Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration: No.

The Commission'8 related evaluation of the amendment, consultation with the State ofLouisiana, and final'no significant hazards considerations determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 9. 1986.

Attorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq., Conner and Wetterhahn. 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW.,

Washington. DC 20008.

Local Public Document Room Locotion: Government Documents Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803.

NRC Project Director: Walter R.

Butler.

Pennsylvania Power and LIght Company, Docket No. 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Date ofapplication foramendment:

September 12, 1986 (PLA-2719 and PLA-2720).

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment revises the Susquehanna Unit 2 Technical Specification 3/4.9.11 to delete the applicability of the provisions ofTechnical Specification 3.0.4 for the purposes of entering Operational Condition 5 from a defueled condition during the first refueling outage.

Date ofissuance: October 8, 1988.

Effective date: September 13, 1986.

Amendment No.: 29.

Facility Operating License No. NPF-2?: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications, Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration: No.

Comments received: No.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final no significant hazards consideration determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 6. 1986.

Attorneyforlicensee: Jay Silberg.

Esquire. Shaw. Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 1800 M Street NW..

Washington. DC 20036.

Local Public Document Room location: Osterhout Free Library, Reference Department, 71 South Franklin Street. Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of October, 1986.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

George Lear, ActingDirector, Divisionof'WRLicensing-A, Officeof¹elear Reactor Regulation.

(FR Doc. 86-23718 Filed 10-17-86: 8:45 am]

siLLNQ coos 76OM1W

l DOCKET NO(S) 50-275 and 50-323 See attached list of addressees Hovember 4, 1986 g'ocket Fi'le P

Local PDR H. Schierling w/o encl.

C. Vogan w/o encl.

PD03 Rdg.

W/o encl..

SUBJECT:

DItjIBLO CANNON NUCLEAR POHER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 The following documents concerning our review of the subject facility are transmitted for your information.

D Notice of Receipt of Application, dated D Draft/Final Environmental Statment, dated D Notice of Availabilityof Draft/Final Environmental Statement, dated D Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No.

, dated D Notice of Hearing on Application for Construction Permit, dated D Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License, dated D Monthly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses Involving no Significant Hazards Considerations, dated D Application and Safety Analysis Report, Volume D Amendment No.

to Application/SAR dated D Construction Permit No. CPPR-D Facilit'y Operating License No.

, Amendment No.

, Amendment No.

dated

, dated D Order Extending Construction Completion Date, dated loot Other (Specify) Bi-Weekl Notice coverin eriod through October 22, 1986.

Expiration date for hearin re uests.and comments; November 21, 1986.

Enclosures:

As stated Division.of PWR Licensina-A UTTice ot Nuclear reactor NegQlation cc:

See next page OFFiCS~

SURNAMS~

DATS~

....P.DN3.......

......GY.agan..

11$ 4J86 0

~

~

NRC FOAM 318 (1/84) NRCM 0240

4 v

~

~

~ ~ t

0 Mr. J.

D. Shiffer Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon CC:

Philip A. Crane, Jr.,

Esq.

Pacific Gas 5 Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Mr. Malcolm H.

Furbush Vice President

- General Counsel Pacific Gas 5 Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California

.94120 Jani ce E. Kerr, Esq.

California Public Utilities Commission 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Frederick Eissler, President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.

4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis Obispo, California.

93401 Mr,. Gordon A. Silver Ms. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Harry M. Willis, Esq.

Seymour 5 Willis 601 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94108 Mr. Richard Hubbard MHB Technical 'Associates Suite K

1725 Hamilton Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Snell

& Wilmer 3100 Valley Center

Phoenix, Arizona 85073 NRC Resident Inspector/Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.

0.

Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Ms.

Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Shell Beach, California 93440 Joel

Reynolds, Esq.

John R. Phillips, Esq.

Center for Law in the Public Interest 10951 West Pico Boulevard Third Floor Los Angeles, California 90064 Mr. Dick Blankenburg Editor 5 Co-Publisher South County Publishing Company P. 0.

Box 460 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Bruce Norton, Esq.

Norton, Burke, Berry 8 French, P.C.

202 E. Osborn Road P. 0.

Box 10569 Phoenix, Arizona 85064 Mr.

W.

C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. 0.

Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.

P. 0.

Box 1178 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Managing Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. 0.

Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406

Pacific Gas II Electric Company Diablo Canyon cc Dr.

R.

B. Ferguson Siera Club - Santa Lucia Chapter Rocky Canyon Star Route Creston, California 93432 Mr. Leland M. Gustafson, Manager Federal Relations Pacific Gas E Electric Company 1726 M Street, N.W.

Suite.1100 Washington, DC 20036-4502 Regional Administrator, Region Y

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Michael J.

Strumwasser, Esq.

Special Counsel to the Attorney General State of California 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Los Angeles, California 90010 Mr. Tom Harris Sacramento Bee 21st and 0 Streets Sacramento, California 95814 Mr. H. Daniel Nix California Energy Commission 1516 9th Street, MS 18 Sacramento, California 95814 Lewis Shollenberger, Esq.

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region Y

1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Mrs. Jacquelyn Wheeler 2455 Leona Street San Luis Obispo; California 93400 Mr. Thomas Devine Government Accountability Project Institute for Policy Studies 1901 gue Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 Chairman San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Room 220 County Courthouse Annex San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Director Energy Facilities Siting Division Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission 1516 9th Street Sacramento, California 95814 President California Public Utilities Commission California State Building 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Joseph 0, Ward, Chief Radiological Health Branch

'tate Department of Health Services 714 P Street, Office Building b8 Sacramento, California 95814 Ms. Nancy Culver 192 Luneta Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Ms. Laurie McDermott, Coordinator Consumers Organized for Defense of Environmental Safety 731 Pacific Street, Suite 42 San Luis Obispo, California 93401

1 II

37502 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BI-Weekly Notice; Applications and Amendments To Operating Ucenses Involving No Signiiicant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to Public Law (Pub. L.)97-415, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is publishing this regular bi-weekly notice. Pub. L 97-415 revised section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), to require the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued. or proposed to be issued. under a new provision of section 189 of the Act. This provision 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>'

request for a hearing from any person, This bi-weekly notice includes all amendments issued, or proposed to be issued. since the date ofpublication of the last bi-weekly notice which was published on October 8, 1986 (51 FR 36081) through October 10, 1986.,

NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACIUTYOPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDSCONSIDERATION DEIERMINATIONAND OPPORTUNITY FOR 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 facilityin accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ol an accident previously evaluated: or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident 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 willbe.

considered in making any final determination. The Commission willnot normally make a final determination

~ unless it receives a request for a hearing.

Comments should be addressed to the Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington.

DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice.

By November 21. 1986 the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facilityoperating 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 petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and petitions 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. Ifa request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chainhan of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, willrule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board willissue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, 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 followingfactors: (1) the nature of the petitioner'e right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding. but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.

Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention willnot 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 fullyin the conduct of the hearing. including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

Ifa )tearing is requested. the Commission willmake a final determination on the issue of no significarit hazards consideration. The final determination willserve to decide when the hearing is held.

Ifthe 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.

Ifthe final determination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.

Normally. the Commission willnot issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example. in derating or shutdown of the facility. the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination willconsider all public and State comments received before action is taken. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action willoccur very Infrequently.

A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission. U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to'the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street. NW..

Washington, DC, by the above date.

Federal Register / Vo). 51, No. 204 / Wednesday.

October 22, 1986 / Notlcee Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice peritxL it ie requested that tha petitioner promptly so inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700).

The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the followingmessage addressed to (eject Directarp petitioner's name and telephone number, date petition waa mailed; plant name; and publication date and pago number of this Federal Register notice.

A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel-Bethesda, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to the attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings ofpetitions for leave to intervene. amended petitions.

supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing willnot be entertained absent a determination by the Commission. the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon e balancing of factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Pitblic Document Room. 1717 H Street, NW.,

Washington. DC. and at the local public document room for the particular facility involved.

Alabama Power Company, Docket Nos 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M, Farloy Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama Date ofamendments request'eptember 2, 1986.

Description ofamendments request:

The proposed changes would modify the visual inspection requirements for Technical Speciifiications (TS) 4.7.9 Snubbers and add a new Table 4.7-3 Snubber Visual Inspection Schedule.

The changes are based on the application of statistical methodology to determine visual inspection intervals which would meet the same acceptance confidence level as the current requirements. Also, the requirement foe visual snubber inspections following initialpower operation would be removed from the TS.

Basis forproposed no sigaifi'cant hazards consideration determinatian:

The change involves only visual surveillance requirements and does not alter the current LimitingCondition for Operation or the accompanying Action Statement for the snubber system TS'e.

The statistical methods employed as the bases for the proposed TS change will not be used to alter tho current requirement that all safety-related snubbers be operable or as justification to allow a snubber to remain in an inoperable condition. Furthermore, the conservative TS requirement to visually inspect 100% of the safety-related saubbers willnot be altered.

The licensee hes reviewed the requirements of 10 CFR 5092 as they relate to the proposed change to the snubber visual inspection requirements and considers the proposed chango not.

to involve a significant hazards consideration. In support of this conclusion, the licensee's analysis Io restated as follows:

(1) The proposed change willnot significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the existing snubber operability requirements willremain intact and the proposed visual inspection requirements willeffectively verify snubber system reliability.

(2) The proposed change willnot create the possibility of e new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the change willnot alter plant configuration or mode ofoperation.

(3) The proposed change willnot involve a significant reduction to the margin ofsafety because the combination of visual inspection intervals which maintain a 95%

confidence that at least 90% of aO safety-related snubbers are operable et all times along with the required functional testing ofsafety-related snubbers willprovide adequate assurqnce that the snubbersystam wiII adequately perform its intended function.

We have reviewed the licensee'e analysis end agree with it. In addition.

the Commission has provided exampleo of amendments considered not likely ta involve hazards considerations (51 FR 7751). Example "(i)A purely administrative change to technical specificatioas: for example. a change to achieve consistency throughout the technical specifications, correction of an error, or a change in nomendature" appears to represent the change relating to deleting the first visual inspection of snubbers after initialpower operation.

Since initialpower operation is long since passed. deleting these out~fMate descriptive words is an editorial cone ction.

The remaiaiag changes do not seem to fitany of the Commission'a examples.

However. based on our preliminary review of the licensee's proposed changes; (1) Asignificaat increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated would not seem probable. The same acceptaace confidence level wouM seem to exist as currently exists in Ferley TS's; (2) The possibility of a new or different kiad of acddeat from any accident previously evaluated would not seein probable since no change to the physical number of snubbers is being considered. Thus, existing design integrity, where snubbers are involved, is not changed; and (3) The change would not involve e significant reduction to the existing margin of safety since the actions required for failures of snubbers fa essentially unchanged. Therefore. the Commission proposes that a no significant hazard consideration is ia order for these changes pending completion of our detailed evaluation.

Local Public Document Room location: George S, Houston Memorial Library, 212 W. Burdeshaw Street, Dothan, Alabama 36303.

Attorneyforlicensee: Ernest LBlake, Esquire, 2300 N Street. NW.,

Washington. DC 20037 NRC Pral'ect Director: Laster S.

Rubens tein.

Arizona Public Service Company et al Docket No. STN 50-528, Palo Verde Nudear Generating Station (PVNGS),

Unit No. 1, Maricope County, Arizona Date ofAmendment Request: August 21, 19$ L Description ofAmendment Request.'he proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to Facility Operating License No.

NPF-41 for PVNGS Unit 1), for the followingSurveillance Requirements:

4.6.4.3.f, 4,7.7.f, 4.7.8L and 4.9.12.f. These surveillance requirements relate to the charcoal adsorbers within the containment hydrogen purge system, the control room essential filtration system, the Engineered Safety Features (ESF) pump room air exhaust deanup system, aad the fuel building essential ventilation system, respectively. Each of these requirements currently specify a charcoal adsorber removal efficiency "greater than or equal to 99.95% ofa halogenated hydrocarbon refrigerant test gas when they are tested in place."

The proposed amendment willchange the removal eHiciency requirement from 99.95% to 99.0%. The proposed chango is being requested to make the Palo Verde Unit 1 Technical Specifications consistent with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 83-13 aad with the Palo Verde Unit 2 Technical

, Specifications which were previously reviewed and accepted by the staE Basis forproposed na significant hazards cansideratian determinalian:

, 37504 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated. in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facility in accordance with a 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 ofaccident from

.any accident previously evaluated: or (3)

Involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

A discussion of these standards as they relate to the amendment request follows:

Standard IInvolve a Significont Increasein the Probobili tyor Consequences ofan Accident Previously Evalauted The proposed change only reduces the efficiency requirement of charcoal adsorbers in ESF filtration systems from 99.95%'to 99.0%, which is stillgreater than the 95% efficiency assumed in FSAR accident analyses. The amendment dbes not. therefore, significantly increase the probability or consequences ofan accident.

Slandord 2Create the Possibility ofo New or Different KindofAccident Fmm AnyAccident Previously Evaluated The proposed amendment does not vary or affect any plant operating condition or parameter. For these reasons. the NRC staff has determined that the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated.

Stondard 8Involve a Significont Reduction in a Margin ofSofety The requested amendment does not change any of the design bases for the plant. For this reason, the NRC staff has determined that the change does not involve a signiTicant reduction in any margins ofsafety.

Based on the above considerations, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed change does not Involve a signiTicant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room Location: Phoenix Public Library, Business, Science and Technology Department. 12 East McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

AttorneyforLicensees: Mr. Arthur C.

Gehr, Snell &Wilmer, 3100 Valley Center. Phoenix. Arizona 85007.

NRCPleat Director: George W.

Knighton.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-31'7 and 50-318, Calvert CliffsNuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland Date ofopplicotion foramendments:

July 31, 1988 (partial response)

Description ofamendment requestt The followingproposed change to the technical specifications (TS) is in partial response to BG&E's application dated July 31. 1988. The remaining issues will be addressed in separate correspondence.

The proposed TS change would modify the Units 1 and 2 TS Surveillance Requirement 4.4.10.1.1 to link the completion of the reactor coolant pump (RCP) flywheel inspections to the licensee's RCP motor overhaul program rather than requiring the completion of the RCP flywheel inspection by the end of the inservice inspection (ISI) interval. This modification shall be only for the first ISI interval. AllfollowingRCP flywheel inspections shall be performed in conjunction with the ISI program.

Basis forproposed no significant'azards consideration determination:

The Units 1 and 2 TS Surveillance Requirement 4.4.10.1.1 requires RCP flywheel inspections to be completed during the 10-year inservice inspection (ISI) interval for each unit. The licensee has proposed that this requirement be modified to link the performance of the RCP flywheel inspections to the licensee's voluntary RCP motor overhaul program rather than to the ISI interval.

This proposed modification would only affect RCP flywheel inspections applicable to the first 10-year ISI interval. Allfollowingflywheel inspections would continue to be linked to their respective ISI interval schedules.

The first 10-year ISI intervals for both Units 1 and 2 are scheduled for completion in April1987. This proposed change would result in the completion of the RCP flywheel inspections being deferred to June 1990, and June 1991 for Unite 1 and 2, respectively, due to being linked to the completion of the RCP motor overhaul program.

The licensee evaluated the proposed change against the standards of10 CFR 50.92 and has determined that the amendments would not: (i) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Though this proposal would significantly lengthen the period of time

'necessary to complete the RCP flywheel inspections, the visual flywheel inspection conducted in conjunction with the RCP motor changeout in comparison to the conventional in-place ultrasonic examination is of sufficient technical superiority to more than mitigate the increase in inspection time, and as such, would not involve any significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident that was previously evaluated.

(ii) Create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

This proposal would not change the RCP design or operation. It would provide an improved method of inspection for determining the presence of any RCP flywheel degradation.

Therefore, the performance of a visual RCP flywheel inspection iri conjunction with the licensee's RCP motor overhaul program would not create the possibility of a new or different accident.

(iii)Involve a significant reduction in margin of safety.

The two.piece bolted flywheel design is difficultto inspect through in-place ultrasonic examinations. The proposed visual RCP flywheel inspections, though performed over an extended time period. would provide an improved indication of the operability and degradation of the RCP flywheels. As such. this proposal would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Based upon the above, the NRC staff agrees with the licensee's evaluation and proposes to determine that the proposed change to TS 4.4.10.1.1 involves no significant hazard consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Calvert County Library. Prince Frederick, Maryland.

Attorneyforlicensee: Jay E. Silberg.

Esq., Shaw. Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 NStreet, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037, NRC Project Director. Ashok C.

Thadani.

Carolina Power & Light Company, Dockets Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina Date ofapplication foramendments:

September 12. 1988.

Description ofamendment request; The proposed amendment would change the Technical Specifications (TS) for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2. The proposed revision to TS Section 3/4.8.3 would extend the allowable isolation time for the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) system steam line Isolation valves.

The RCIC system steam line is provided with both an inboard containment isolation valve (E51-F007) and an outboard isolation valve (E51-

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No.,204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1988 / Notices F0081). Technical Specification 3/4.6.3 currently requires these isolation valves to close within 20 seconds. The isolation time for these valves for the Brunswick facility has historically been between 18 and 20 seconds. Therefore, the licensee is requesting the allowable isolation time be extended to 30 seconds to provide a measure of flexibilityin the surveillance testing. The proposed change is identical to that granted as temporary Amendment 126 to the Brunswick 2 license on June 10. 1988.

Basis forproposed no significant hozords considerotion determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated: (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. In the September 12, 1988 submittal and in the June 4, 1986 application for temporary Amendment 128, the licensee has provided an analysis of the proposed increase in RCIC isolation time relative to significant hazards considerations. As a result of this analysis, the licensee has determined the following:

1. The proposed amendment does not involve a signiiicant incrcasc in the probability or consequences ofany accident previously evaluated. An analysis has been performed which dctcrmincd that extending the allowable RCIC steam line isolation time to 30 seconds has no effect on the prolilcs used io establish environmental qualification at Brunswick. These proiiics were established based on a rupture of a 10.inch HPCI line with a SO.second isolation time.

The amount of coolant lost in 30 seconds through a break In the 3-Inch RCIC steam line would be much less than that assumed for the 10-Inch HPCI line break. Therefore, although increasing the isolation time for the 3.inch RCIC stcam line results In a slight increase in the consequences of that accident, a rupture of the 10.inch HPCI steam line remains the limitingevent for environmental qualification purposes. The radiological affects of the extended RCIC Isoletion time have also been evaluated. Design basis accident dose estimates at the site boundary are based on a main steam line break. These cstiinctcs are

- epproximatciy a factor of 100 less than the dose allowed by 10 CFR 100. The dose estimate resulting from a rupture In the 10-inch HPCI steam line is approximately 1/3 of that of a main stream line break. Given the reduced loss of coolant through the 3-Inch RCIC linc. doses ai the site boundary duc to a ruptured RCIC linc would clearly be well within limits established in 10 CFR 100. A break in the 3-inch RCIC line with a 30-second closure time for the Isolation valve would result, then, In a very small offsite dose. less than one-tenth the dose calculated for the HPCI steam line break. The change In dose associated with the proposed change in RCIC isolation time from 20 to 30 seconds Is only a fraction of this small dose.

2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident than previously evaluated because the change docs not affect the method In which the RCIC system. or any other safety system. performs Its safety function. Valve operability willcontinue to be ensured through periodic stroke tcstirg to the 30.second Iimtis.

3. The proposed amendment does not involve a signilicant reduction In a margin of safety because the slight increase in the consequences of a RCIC steam line rupture which could result duc to the proposed

'hange are bounded by those ofa main stream line or 10-inch HPCI line rupture. As such, the extended RCIC stream line isolation time does not present either a radiological or an environmental qualilication concern.

Periodic stroke time testing of the valves will maintain assurance ofvalve operability, The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and concludes the following.

1. Operation of the facilityin accordance with the amendment would not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated because the mode of operation of the plant is not changed. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased because as discussed above only a small effect is seen in an accident previously detejnlned to have minor consequences compared to the limitingaccidents of this type. i.e., HPCI line break and main stream line break.

2. Operation of the facilityin accordance with the amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident because the mode ofplant operation is not changed by the amendment,

3. Operation of the facilityin accordance with the amendment would not involve a reduction in a margin of safety because the margins of safety involved are determined from the more severe cases ofHPCI line break and main steam line break.

Based on this review, the staff therefore proposes to determine that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Southport, Brunswick County Library, 109 W. Moore Street. Southport, North Carolina 28481.

Attorneyforlicensee: Thomas A Baxter, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director. Daniel R.

Muller.

Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina Date ofamendment request: August 28, 1988.

Description ofomendment request; The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TS) for the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2. The proposed change revlses the Technical Specifications to correct an editorial error in Section 3.3.1.2. In a previous amendment, several paragraphs were deleted from TS Section 3.3.1.1 and subsequent paragraphs were renumbered. However.

references to the renumbered paragraphs were inadvertently not changed, thus creating incorrect references, Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided guidance in the form of examples of amendments that are not considered likelyto involve significant hazards considerations (51 FR 7751). Example (i) states "a purely administrative change to the Technical Specifications: for example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the Technical Specifications, correction of an error or a change in nomenclature."

Since the proposed change'will correct paragraph referencing, in order to achieve consistency in the Technical Specifications, the change is identical to Example (i).Therefore, the Commission proposes to determine. that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Boom location: Hartsville Memorial Library, Home and Fifth Avenues, Hartsville, South Carolina 29535.

Attorneyforlicensee: Shaw, Pittmari, Patte. and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director. Laster S.

Rubenstein.

Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No, 50-261', H. B, Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 Darlington County, South Carolina Date ofamendment request:

September 3, 1988.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TS) for the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2. The proposed revision involves a change to Technical Specification 8.2.3

Federal Register / Vo1 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1966 / Notices td reflect a dual role ofSenior Reactor Operator (SRO) and Shift Technical Advisor (STA) ifan individual holds a SRO license and also meets the requirements of the STA. The change is based on the stafFs Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift (Generic Letter 86-04).

Basis forproposed no significan!

hozords considerotion delerminotioni The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a signiTicant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no signiTicant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The licensee has determined and the NRC staff agrees that the proposed amendment willnot:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated because this request combines existing requirements and is not intended to eliminate or reduce licensee responsibilities. It is based on an NRC policy statement which encourages use of the dual~le position, NRC requirements are not being eliminated and. therefore. there is no increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

(2) Create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the request combines existing NRC requirement.'without eliminating any already in existence. Therefore, no new accidents could result from making this change.

(3) Involve a signiTicant reduction in a margin of safety because operation of the facilitywith this change in place would not result in a significant reduction in any margin of safety and no NRC requirements are being eliminated.

Accordingly. the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications involve no significant hazards consideration, Loco!Public Document Room locations Hartsviiie Memorial Ubrary, Home and Fifth Avenues, Hartsville, South Carolina 29535.

Attorneyforlicensee: Shaw, Pittman, Potts. and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NWWashington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director. Lester S.

Rubenstein.

Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H, B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Dnrlington County, South Carolina Date ofomendmeri t request:

September 4, 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TS) for the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2. The proposed revision adds to TS Section 6.13,1 a distance at which dose rates must be measured for determining whether an area is a High Radiation Area (HRA) or a Locked High Radiation Area (LHRA).This change adopts the Standard Technical Specification definition and thus, willadd ciarity and avoid misunderstanding of the existing TS Basis forproposed no signi%'cont hazards considerolion determinatiom The Commission has provided guidance in the form ofexamples of amendments that are not considered to involve i significant hazards conslderationit (51 FR 7751). Example (ii) states, "Achange that constitutes an additional limitation, restriction. or control not presently included in the technical speciTications:

for example, a more stringent surveillance requirement." The proposed change adds an 18 inch distance at which the dose rates must be measured.

This is clearly an additional requirement and fits Example (ii) above. The Commission therefore proposes to determine that this action involves no signiTicant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Hartsville Memorial Library, Home and Fifth Avenues, Hartsville, South Carolina 29535.

Attorneyforlicensee: Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Pnoj ect Director. Lester S.

Rubenstein.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket No. STN 50-454, Byron Station, Unit 1 Ogle County, Illinois Dote ofopplication foramendment:

August 29, 1986.

Description ofomendment request:

The amendment would revise condition 2.C(6) of the license issued February 14, 1985, and would remove the Fire Protection Technical Specifications from Appendix Aof that license. Generic Letter 86-10 from the NRC, dated Aprfl 24, 1986. provided guidance to licensees to request a revised Qre protection license condition and to request mnoval of the Fire Protection Technical SpeciTications, The licensee's proposed amendment is in response to that Generic Letter.

It is the staffs intention to apply this amendment to Byron Station. Unit 2, when it receives its operating license if the amendment is found acceptable for Byron Station. Unit1.

Basis forproposed rio significont hozards consideration determinotiom The staff has evaluated this proposed amendment and determined that it involves no significant hazards considerations. According to 10 CFR 50.92(c), a proposed amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facilityin 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 signiTicant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed revision to the Ucense Condition is in accordance with the guidance provided in Generic LetterI-10 for Commonwealth Edison Company requesting removal of the Byron Station Fire Protection Technical Specifications.

The proposed Ucense Condition is virtually the same as the existing License Condition with minimal changes, The revision is proposed to be consistent with the NRC goal of standardizing the Fire Protection Program License Conttitions to ensure uniform enforcement of fire protection requirements. The change requested is to the license condition which provides the guidelines for maintaining and making changes to the Station's File Protection Program and is not a change affecting the design or function of a particular feature of the fire protection system. Since the License Condition wording is virtually the same, the change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or.

consequences ofan accident previously evaluated. It does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those previously evaluated. It also doesn't involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety since the license condition still requires that 10 CFR 5059 evaluation for identification of unreview'ed safety questions be performed for each proposed change. With the proposed license condition, as with the existing licensing condition. each change to the fire protection program willbe evaluated for its impact on the fire hazards analysis and the margin of safety.

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1988 / Notices 37507 The second revision requests the removal of the Fire Protection Technical Specifications and the adffition of certain administrative control requirements. Removing the Fire Protection Technical Specifications does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; the accident evaluated being the postulated fire in the fire hazard and analysis documented in the Fire Protection Report. Removing these Technical Specifications does not alter the results of the fire hazards analysis.

The Technical Specifications provide requirements for fire protection of equipment important to the safe shutdown of the plant. The proposed change does not remove or degrade Byron Station's administrative program.

Thus. a level of fire protection consistent with that currently existing willremain unchanged.

A new or different kind of accident from that previously evaluated is not created, The proposed change only involves a transfer of the controlling mechanisms for the fire protection requirements from the Technical Specification to Byron Station's administrative program. The Fire Protection Program License Condition 2.C(6) and the proposed changes to Technical Specification Administrative Control Section 8.0 requires that for any proposed changes to the Fire Protection Program requirements, a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation be performed. In addition, an onsite review involving personnel from different cognizant functional areas will also be required to review any proposed changes to the Fire Protection Program.

Therefore, individual changes will continue to be evaluated for their impact on the fire hazards analysis.

The proposed change does not involve a reduction in the margin of safety since it is administrative in nature and does not involve a particular change to the fire hazards analysis previously documented. Each individual change willcontinue to be evaluated separat'ely for its impact on the margin of safety.

The proposed revision willensure that adequate review of proposed changes to the Fire Protection program continues to be performed.

Based on the preceding assessment, the staff believes this proposed amendment involves no significant hazards considerations.

Local Public Document Room location: Rockford Public Library. 215 N.

Wyman Street, Rockford, Illinois 61103.

Attorneyfor licensee: Michael Miller, Isham, Lincoln 5 Beale, One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor. Chicago, illinois 60603.

NRC Project Director. Vincent S,.

Noonan.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2, La Salle County, Illinois Dates ofamendment request:

December 20, 1985. as amended by letters dated April29, August 13, and September 3, 1988.

Description ofamendment requestt The proposed amendments to Operating License NPF-11 and Operating License NPF-18 would revise the La Salle Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications to reflect Commonw'ealth Edison's (licensee) management organizational changes both at the corporate level and at the La Salle County Station as a result of a reorganization. The licensee indicates that all functions performed by individuals meet the minimum acceptable levels described in Section 4.2.4 ofANSI N18.1-1971, for each respective requirement.

In the staffs review of the original application, it was determined that the delegation of authority permitted a Superintendent to approve overtime for other departments and permitted delegation of authority to authorize overtime to a lower level supervisor. On September 3, 1986. the licensee augmented its application by explicitly denoting the authority to each respective Superintendent and deleting delegation to lower level supervisors. In addition, the letters dated April29 and August 13, 1988. provided clarifying information in response to staff questions.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards considerotian determinatiant The original request of December 20, 1985, was noticed in the Federal Register (51 FR 3711) on January 29, 1988. In augmenting its application to explicitly denote that each Superintendent only approves overtime for their own department, the licensee revised its original request by letter dated September 3, 1988. This revision was substantial enough to require renoticing the requested amendments. This change specifies the authority for authorizing overtime in accordance with the staffs requirements.

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists by providing certain examples (51 FR 7744). Example (I) stated, "Apurely administrative change to the Technical Speciflcatfons." These proposed amendments fall under this example since these changes are administrative in nature.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes that the changes would fall into the category of a no signiTicant hazards consideration determination since the changes are administrative..

Local Public Document Room locotion: Public Library of IllinoisValley Community College. Rural Route No. 1, Ogelsby, Illinois81348.

Attorneyforlicensee: Isham, Lincoln and Burke, Suite 840, 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington. DC 20038.

NRC Project Director: Elinor G.

Adensam.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50404, Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Benton County, Illinois Date ofapplicotian foramendments:

September 19, 1986.

Description ofamendments request:

These amendments willallow one battery charger assigned to a 125 V33.C.

bus of a unit in either cold shutdown or refueling to be used to fulfillthe battery charger operability requirement of a D.C. bus of an operating unit. This will be accomplished by utilizing the crosstie breakers.

The need for this proposed change has developed hom the planned replacement of the Zion Station batteries, These batteries are being replaced as part of a program to upgrade and expand the capacity of Zion Station's safety-related batteries. The two batteries dedicated to Unit 1 (111 and 112) and the common battery (011) are scheduled to be replaced during the current Unit 1 refueling outage.

This change does not alter the intent of the current Technical SpeciTications.

Section 3.15.2.e already allows the use of a D.C, bus from a unit in either cold shutdown or refueling to fulfillthe operability requirements of the opposite unit. Inadvertently, this logic was not transferred to Section 3.1S.2.f, These proposed amendments willachieve consistency between the intent of Section 3.152.e and Section 3.152.f and are a clarification of the existing Technical Specifications.

Basis forproposed na significont hazards cansideratian determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists

[51 FR 7751 (March 6. 1986)). Aproposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility fn accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or conseguences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a

Federal Register / Voh 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1988 / Notices new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The Licensee provided the following discussion regarding the above three criteria:

Criterion 1 The operating unit willhave three batteries and three operable 1ZS VJB.C. bases available to It at all times. Thus. there has been no change in the evaiisbiiiiy or quality of the D.C. control power available to the operating Zion reactor.

Since there has been no degradation Ia the integrity of Zion's electrical system, then all safety. related systems willoperate as previously evaluated. Thus, there willbe no change In the consequences ofany accident previously evaluated.

Based upon the above discussion this proposed emendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofany acctdeat previously evaluated.

Criterion 2 As discussed above. the use of the crosstie breakers to allow the battery charger assigned toi shutdown unit to be attlized to fulfillthe operability requirements of the opposite, operating unit has no effect on any of Zion's system aor on the operation conditions af the Zion reactors. In addition.

the reliabilityand integrity of the ZIoa eiectrIcal system willbe unaltered. Thaa, the possibility of e new or different kind of internally generated accident cannot be created.

'Ihe ase of the 125 V.D.C. bas crossties hss no effect on the generation ofany external event. Thet II, there Is no connection between the alignment of the D.C. system aad the susceptibility of Zion Station to such externat events as earthquakes, tornadoes, and Iloods.

Baeed upon the above discussion, this proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 3 As discussed above, there willbe three D.C. bases coniiauously available for the operating unit end iwo bases available for the shutdown anil. Thus, the operating unit remains capable of withstanding a postulated single failure at all times. Therefoie. thts proposed change does not reduce the margin of safety.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration

. determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis. Accordingly. the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed changes to the Technical Speciiication involve no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Waukegan Public Library, 128N County Street, Waukegan, Illinois 60085.

Attorney to licensee: P. Steptoe, Esq Isham, Lincoln and Beale, Counselors at Law, Three First National Plaza, 51st Floor, Chicago, Illinois60802.

NBC Pleat Directorr Steven A.

Varga.

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi-2, Monroe County, Michigan Dates ofamendment request: June 19 and July 31, 1988.

Description ofamendment rerluestl This proposed amendment. ifapproved, would revise the Fermi-2 Operating License No. NPF&3 by modifying an item in Attachment 2 to the license.

License Condition 2.C(17) requires the licensee to complete the required emergency response capabilities as described in Attachment 2 to the Ferml-2 license. Item 1(a) of Attachment 2 presently requires the licensee to submit, prior to November 30. 1988, a summary report ofits detailed control room design review (DCRDR).

An additional item in Attachment 2, Item 3(a), is addressed in the licensee's two submittals cited above. Item 3(a) required the licensee to provide, prior to July 31, 1988, a procedures generation package (PGP) for NRC staff review and approval. The licensee submitted information on this matter in its letter dated July 31, 1988. The staff will address this item at a later date.

In its letter dated June 19. 1988, the licensee stated that the absence of approved generic emergency procedures guidelines (EPGs) prevented it from conducting the DCRDR on the schedule required by Item 1(a) ofAttachment 2 to the Fermi-2 license. SpeciTically, the staff requirement is that the licensee perform the DCRDR in accordance with approved EPGs. These EPGs are currently being developed by a BWR Owners Group (BWROG) with the most recent version identified as Revision 4.

The licensee is a member of this Owners Group. Because the submittal date of Revision 4 of the BWROG EPGs has been delayed by about ten months from the original estimate ofDecember 1985, the date established in Item 1(a) (i.e.,

November 30, 1988) for submittal of the summary report on the DCRDR, is no longer a reasonable requirement. To comply with Item 1(a) in light of this delay, beyond its control. the licensee requested a license amendment in its letter dated June 19, 1988. which would delay submitting the summary report of the DCRDR until July 31, 1987. This request for a license amendment was subsequently modiTied in the licensee's letter of July 31, 1988, to make the submittal date a floating milestone based on an interval of eight months after issuance of the NRC's approval of Revision 4 to the BWROG EPGs.

Basis forproposed na significant hazards cansideratian determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation 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 ofaccident from an accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

The licensee has determined. and the staff agrees. that the requested amendments per 10 CFR 50.92 do not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the design of the control room has been reviewed several flmes by the licensee to determine whether there were any human factors deficiencies. The staff reviewed this effort and issued favorable evaluations in supplements to the SER; the most recent favorable evaluation is contained in Supplement 5 to the SER issued in March 1985.

Because the original license condition was predicated on these favorable initial evaluations and contemplated a limited time interval before completion of the DCRDR. the proposed limited extension of the date for completion of the DCRDR does not in itself change the basis for the license condition nor introduce a siydficant change in circumstances relating to the safe operation of the plant; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated because the limited extension of time to complete the DCRDR does not change the type of potential accidents which might occur due to human errors during the proposed extended interim period; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the proposed extension of time does not reduce the type or number of instruments and controls available for use by the operators in the control room.

Based on our review of the proposed modiTications, the staff finds that there exists reasonable assurance that this proposed change willhave little or no impact on the public health and safety.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the requested change to the Fermi-2 Operating License

Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 2" 1988 / Notices 37509 involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Pui Iir. Dacumenl Boom location: Monroe County Library System, 3700 South Custer Road.

Monroe. Michigan 48161.

Attorneyfor the Licensee: John Flynn.

Esq.. The Detroit Edison Company, 2000 Second Avenue. Detroit, Michigan 48909.

NRC Project Director: Elinor Adensam.

Duquesne Light Company, Docket No.

50-334, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1, Shippingport, Pennsylvania Dote ofamendment request: July 25, 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would change Tables 3.3-3 and 4.3-2 oE the Technical Specifications to comply with Revision 5 of the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications (WSTS). Specifically, the operational modes under which three steam isolation signals (manual, automatic actuation logic and high steam pressure rate) are required to be operational and surveyed would be specified as Modes 1, 2 and 3. Currently, these signals are required to be applicable to Modes 1, 2, 3 and 4 (hot shutdown).

The capability to isolate the stearnline is not needed during Mode 4. This is because the limits specified for Mode 4 temperature. pressure and shutdown margin already put, the plant in a safe condition without need Eor steamline fsolation.

Basis forproposed na significont hazards consideration determination:

The proposed change would not involve any hardware change or change in operational procedure. Steamline isolation is not needed during Mode 4 as discussed above. Thus, the apparent relaxation in operational and surveillance requirements in reality does not result. in any real change that affects plant operation. The requested amendment does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. willnot create the possibility of a new type of accident or malfunction of a different type from any previously analyzed. and willnot decrease any margin of safety.

Therefore, the staff proposes to characterize the proposed amendment as involving no siyuTicant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room localiom B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 683 Franklin Avenue. Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.

Allorneyfor licensee: Gerald Charnoff. Esquire. Jay P Silberg, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge. 2300 N Street NW.,

Washington. DC 20037.

NRC Project Direc!ar: Lester S.

Rubenstein.

Florida Power Corporation, et al Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit No.'3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Cifrus

County, florida Dale ofamendment request; June 18 1988, as amended July 23, 1988.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Speciflcathins (TSs) to: (1)

Raise the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint from 2300 psig to 2355 psig, and (2) add Anticipatory Reactor Trips (ARTs) for trips of both main feedwater pumps and the main turbine.

Change 1Raise the Reactor High Pressure Trip SetpoinL Subsequent to the TMI-2accident. the Commission's stafE required certain changes to Reactor Protection Systems intended to reduce challenges to and opening oE the power operated relief valve (PORV), For Babcock &Wilcox (B&W)reactors, those changes included lowering the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint from 2355 psig to 2300 psig, and implementing a safety grade automatic ART for. among other things. a turbine trip. The Commissfon's guidelines were that PORV opening should occur less than 5% of the time for all anticipated transients and that the contribution to the probability of a small break loss of coolant accident (SBLOCA]ham e stuck open PORV is insignificant. While these modifications have met the objectives of reducing challenges to and opening of the PORV. they have Increased the freqifency ofreactor trips end the attendant challenges to plant safety systems.

B8 W has submitted Topical Report BAW-1890. "Justiflicatfon for Raising Setpoint for Reactor Trip on High Pressure." The Commission's staff has reviewed this report and In Its Safety Evaluation found it acceptable for referencing in license appficatfons. This Topical Report provides justiTrcation that a number of high pressure transients would not have resulted in a reactor tripifmore margin had been available to the High Pressure Thp setpoint. The analyses presented demonstrate that when the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint is raised to 2355 psig (the original liceiised.value) and the arming threshold fbrARTon turbine trip fs raised to 45% power, e reduction in total reactor trip frequency of about 10%

Is expected. Reductions in reactor trip frequency willcontribute to overall plant safety as weE aa plnaC availability.

Furthermore, Commission guidelines regarding the PORV, that the probability of SBLOCA due to stuck open PORV must be less than AN1 per reactor year and that less than 5% ofhigh pressure trips are allowed to open the PORV.

continue to be met following these changes. The licensee has reviewed tho Topical Report and the Commission's Safety Evaluation and has verified that they are applicable to Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3).

Change 2-Add Anticipatory Reactor Trips.

The proposed change requests that the speciflcatfons for the Reactor Protection System instrumentation be changed to add two new reactor trips. These new trips are (a) Anticipatory Reactor Trf~oth main Eeedwater pumps, and (b) Anticipatory Reactor Tripmain turbine.

The ARTon trip of both main feedwater pumps willbe armed whenever reactor power Is equal to or greater than 20% of fullpower, and the main turbine tripwillbe armed whenever reactor power is equal to or greater than 45% of fuffpower. This request is made fn response to NUREG-0737. Item II.K.2.10. and Generic Letter 82-16 dated September 20, 1982.

Subsequent to the TMI-2accident, the Cominission's staff required changes to Reactor Protection Systems intended to reduce challenges to and opening of the PORV. Two of those changes required at CR-3 were the establishment of safety grade automatic ARTs for trip ofboth main feedwater pumps and for main turbine trip. These ARTs are intended to anticipate plant transients which may ultimately result in reactor high pressure trips and thereby elfminate some PORV challenges.

The proposed TSs are in accordance with the sample TSs given in Generic Letter 82-18, except for the arming threshold of the turbine ARTs. The arming threshold for the turbine ARTs is based on B&WTopical Report BAW-1893, "Basis for Raising Arming Threshold forAnticipatory Reactor Trip on Turbine Trip."The Commission's staff hae reviewed this Topical Report and in its Safety Evaluation tound it acceptable for use in license applications. The licensee has reviewed the Topical Report and the Safety Evaluation and determined their results to be applicable to CR-X As demonstrated in the Topical Report, establishing the arming threshold for the ART on turbine trip at 45% fullpower with Reactor High Pressure Trip set at 2355 psig will continue to meet NUREG-0737 guidelines regarding PORV challengeo and PORV opening. There may be

S7510 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices expected to be an overall reduction in reactor trips and the attendant challenges to safety systems with these reactor protection setpoints.

Basis forproposed no signi%'cant hazards consideralion determination:

Change 1 These proposed changes have been reviewed against each of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92, namely, that the proposed changes would not:

(1) Invo1ve 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 signiTicant reduction in a margin of safety.

With regard to criterion (1) above, since 2355 psig is the design Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint, the original Final Safety Analysis Report analyses remain applicable for this setpoint.

Analyses applicable to CR-3 have been performed which demonstrate that the guidelines on which the previous reduction ofReactor High Pressure Trip setpoint were based willcontinue to be met at the higher (originally licensed) setpoint. Therefore, increasing the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint from 2300 psig to 2355 psig does not significantly increase the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated.

With regard to criterion (2) above, this change returns the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint to the value for which the plant was originally licensed.

The function of the setpoint is not altered as a result of the change (i.e., the setpoint still serves the purposes of assuring the integrity of the Reactor Coolant System as a barrier against the release of fission products, assuring that the Reactor Coolant System pressure safety limitis not exceeded, and reducing challenges to the PORV).

Therefore, increasing the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint from 2300 psig to 2355 psig does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

With regard to criterion (3) above, the Commission's Safety Evaluation of B&W Topical Report BAW-1890 concludes that this setpoint change meets the Commission's guidelines regarding PORV openings and PORV-caused SBLOCAs. Returning the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint to 2355 psig will reduce the frequency of automatic trips, and thus decrease the number of challenges to plant safety systems.

Therefore, increasing the Reactor High Pressure Trip setpoint from 2300 psig to 2355 psig does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Change 2 The licensee has made the following determination, with which the Commission agrees.

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of standards for determininp whether a significant hazards consideration exists by providing certain examples (51 FR 7751) of amendmenie tha: ore considered not likely to involve significant hazards consideration.

Example (ii)relates to a change that constitutes an additional limitation, restriction or control not presently included in the TSs. In this case, the change described above is similar to example (ii).

Adding ARTS on trip of both main feedwater pumps, or on trip of the main turbine is a reactor control function not presently included in the TSs. The proposed TSs are in accordance with the guidance of Generic Letter 82-16 except for the arming threshold of the main turbine ART. The main turbine'RT arming threshold was chosen based on B8 W analyses that have been reviewed and accepted by the Commission's staff in its Safety Evaluation dated April25, 1986. The licensee has reviewed the B&Wanalysis and Commission's Safety Evaluation and has veriTied they are applicable to CR-3.

Based on the above, the amendment willnot:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated. Adding these specifications places an additional restriction on the operation of CR-3 that willshut the reactor down in anticipation of a reactor high pressure condition that could exist due to a main turbine trip or both main feedwater pump trip. The ARTs preclude either of these events from producing a challenge to the Reactor Coolant System PORV.

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. ARTs provide an additional safety function, two additional reactor trips, and offer no opportunity for creating a new kind of accident.

8. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. ARTs provide an additional safety function which increases the margin of safety relative to transients which have a probability of resulting in an overpressure condition in the Reactor Coolant System.

Based on the above, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

LocolPublic Document Room location: Crystal River Public Library, 668 NW. First Avenue, Crystal River.

Florida 32629.

Attorneyforlicensee: R. W. Neiser.

Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Florida Power Corporation, P.O. Box 14042, St. Petersburg. Florida 33733.

NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz.

Q. "Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island Nuctear Station, Unit No. 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania Dale ofomendment request: May 12, 1986, as supplemented September 11.

1986.

Description ofamendment request:

NRC Generic Letter (G.L.) 83-43 dated December 19, 1983, requested licensees to amend their Technical Specifications (TSs) to reflect changes in reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50, 55 50.72 and 50.73. A model TS was enclosed showing revisions to be made in the "Administrative Control" and "Definitions" sections of the TSs. The generic letter further requested that other conforming changes to TSs be made in order to reflect the revised reporting requirements.

The purpose of this TS Change Request (TSCR) is to revise the repor'ting requirements of the TSs forTMI-1 to be consistent with the rule changes in 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. In addition, the TSCR incorporates other administrative changes affecting the same TS pages as modifled by the above-mentioned generic letter.

Administrative changes made in addition to those specifically made in response to G.L 85-43 involve the following:

a. Deletion of the requirements for submittal of certain reports or information no longer required by NRC.

b. Clarification of TS section 6.10.2 by inserting the words "..

~ unless otherwise specified in 6.10.1 above."

This is to distinguish between the records which are to be retained for the duration of the operating license and those which are required to be retained for at least five years.

c. Deletion of Specification 6.10.2.n concerning the retention of equipment qualification records, as these requirements are addressed by regulation in 10 CFR 50.49.

d. Designation of the appropriate individual responsible for maintaining administrative control of keys to locked barricades specified in 8.12.1.b.

e. Deletion of tlie reference to Regulatory Guide (R.G.) 10.1 from Specification 6.9.1.C concerning the

Federal Register / Vak 52, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices.

distribution of the Monthly Operating Report.

f. Clarification ofSpeciTication 6.8.3 to specifiy more dearly the approval process for temporary changes to the procedures of 6.8.1. This change is to remove the ambiguity of Ihe current wording.

g. Deletion of the redundant listing of special reports in Specification 6B.3.

h. Correction offormat, grammar, misspellings, and other errors from previous amendments and addition of language to improve clarity of the TSs.

i. ClariTication of TS reporting requirements and/or bases to be consistent with Standard TSs.

This amendment request was originally published in the FederaI Register on July 2, 2988 (51 FR 24258).

Since then, the licensee has submitted a supplement in response to NRC comments cancerning appropriate TS language and to ensure changes are consistent with Standard TSs. All supplemental TS changes are withinthe

.scope of Items h and i above.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinotion:

The Commission's staff has reviewed the licensee's na signiTicant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis. The Commission has provided guidelines pertaining to the application of the three no significant hazards consideratian standards by listing speciTic examples ln 51 FR 7751. Part of the proposed amendment is being made to comply with reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. This portion of the proposed amendment is in the same category as example (vii)of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards consideration, i.e.. a change to make a license conform to changes in the regulations. where the license change results in very minor changes to facility operations clearly in keeping with the regulations..

The remaining portions of the amendment serve to delete reports no longer required by the NRC. delete TS requirements superseded by regulations, clarify ambiguity in wording. designate individuals responsible for maintaining administrative control ofkeys to locked barricades, delete out-dated report distribution requirements, delete redundant listing ofspecial reports, provide consistency with Standard TSs, and correct format, grammar, and misspellings. These changes are administrative in nature and are similar to example (i) of amendments that are not considered likely to involve a significant hazards consideration. i.e., a purely administrative change to achieve consistency. correct errors change nomenclature, and improve clarity, Based on the above. the Commission makes a proposed determinatfon that this amendment request does not involve signiTicant hazards considerations.

Local Public Dacumenb Boom location: Government Publications Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Educe tian Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126.

Attorneyforlicensee: Ernest L Blake, Jr., Pittman, Potts and Trowbridg, 2300 N Street. NW., Washington, DC 20037.

NRCProject Director: John F. Stofz.

GPU Nudear Corporation, at aL, Docket No. 50-289, Three MileIsland Nudeez Station, Unit No. 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania Date ofomendment request July 29, 1988 (TSCR Na. 251), as supplemented August 21, 2986.

Description ofamendment request:

Primarily, the proposed amendment would change and delete certain unit staff organizational titles or responsibilities identified in Section 6 of the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Three Mile Island Nuclear Statian. Unit No. 1. More specifically, Technical Specificatian Change Request (TSCR)

Na. 151 reorganizes the Plant Operatians department, retitles the Radiologicat Controls Forman. deletes the position af Training Caordinatar, and deletes'Type of Ucense" reference fram the organization chart. The type of ttcense required far certain operatars h not being changed. Rather the reference ta the required ltcense fs being deleted from the organization chart.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration delernu'nation:

Pursuant to the provisions of10 CFR 50.91, the licensee has provided the followingdetermination ofno significant hazards considerattons usfng the standard criteria prescribed by 10CFR 50.92(c):

1. The proposed changes do not affect plant equipment or systems and therefore wittnot involve a sfgnificant increase in the probability os consequences of an accident previously evaluated or

2. The propose& changes do not affecti plant equipment or systems and therefore willnot create the possibility of anew or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated or

3. The proposed changes do not alter functional duties and therefore wittnot involve a significant reduction bx a margin of safety.

The Commission's staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed amendment and associated analysis of no significant hazards considerations. Based upon this review. the staff concurs with the licensee's analysis on the three standards and proposes to determine that the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Government Pub! ications Section, State LibraryofPennsylvania, Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets. Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania 17126.

Attorneyforlicensee: Ernest L Blake, Jr., Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street. NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

NRCProject Director: John F. Stolz.

GPU Nudear Corporation. et a4 Docket No. 50-289, Three MileIsland Nudear Station, UnitNa. 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvanta Date ofomendment request: August

25. 1986, as supplemented October 1, 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

The Fuel Handling Building(FHB) Air Treatment System contains, controls, mitigates, monitors, and records radiation releases which might result from a TMI-1postulated spent fuel

'ccident in the FHB.As e result ofa Licensing Board decision ia the TMI-2 restart proceeding. GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUNI is installing an engineered safety feature (ESF) filtration system for the Unit 1 side of the FHB The new system, as described in GPUN's submittals to the NRC dated March 27, 1988 and October 1, 1988. ia expected to be operational around November 1, 298L The detailed system description were not submitted as part of the amendment request (i.e. not part of the separate submit tats dated August 25, 1986, as supplemented October 1.

1988). However. they do form part of the basis of the NRC review on this amendment.

This proposed amendment: (1)

Provides additional requirements for operation and testing of the new FHB ESF AfrTreatment System which are adequate to protect against accidents involving the handling of irradiated fuel fn the FHB; (2) reduces some of the requirements forthe Auxiliaryand Ff.fB AirTreatment System which are no longer required to protect against this type of accident while retaining those requirements of the Auxiliaryand FHB AirTreatment System necessaiy to ensure that doses ta radiation workers on site and reteases during normal power operation are maintained As Low

S7512 Federal Register / Vol, 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA);

and (3) includes administrative or editorial changes for clarity.

Bosis forproposed no significant hozards consideration determinationr The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed

'mendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifit meets three standards as described in 10 CFR 50.92. The Commission's staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed determination and is in agreement with the licensee's conclusion. Each standard is discussed in turn.

Standard 1

The proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated. The design basis accident for the FHB ESF AirTreatment System is a fuel drop accident. Operation of this system and the Auxiliaryand FHB Air Treatment System in accordance with this proposed amendment would not interfere with fuel handling operations and would not increase the probability of the accident. The new system would add filtrationredundancy, would not reduce filtrationcapacity, and therefore would not increase the consequences of an accident.

Standard 2The proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The FHB ESF AirTreatment System is similar in design features and configuration to other such systems.

Therefore, operation in accordance with this proposed amendment would not create new or different accidents from those evaluated. Additionally, the physical installation of the new system has been evaluated by the licensee who has concluded that the new system will not affect the seismic capability of the building to which it is attached.

Standard 3

The proposed amendment would not involve a signiTicant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed changes provide an increased margin of safety by providing a separate ESF AirTreatment System.

Based on the above discussions, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed amendment would not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room locotion: Government Publications Section, State Library ofPennsylvania.

Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17128.

Attorneyforlicensee: G.F.

Trowbridge, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz.

Gulf States Utilities Company, Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 West Felidana Parish, Louisiana Dale ofamendmenl request: August 4, 1986 as amended August 15, 1986 and supplemented on September 26. 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

Amend Attachment IH and Technical Specification 3/4-6.1.1 of the River Bend Station Operating License. NPF-47, to revise the provisions on maintenance for the TDI emergency diesel generators.

This revision willimplement the recommendation ofRevision 2 of Appendix IIofTDI Diesel Generator Owners Group Design Review and Quality Revalidation (DRQR) Report (submitted May 1, 1988). NRC staff evaluation of the DRQR is documented in Supplement 3 of the River Bend SER.

Bosis forproposed no significant hozards consideration determinotion:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no signiTicant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facility in accordance with a 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 licensee has provided the followinganalysis of significant hazards considerations in its August 4, 1986 request for a license amendment which was supplemented by its September 26, 1986 submission, The proposed change does not involve a signiiicant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the Transamerica Delavai Inc. (TDI) Owners Group Design Review and Quality Revalidation (DRQR) Report requires inspections that are more thorough than the inspections cuiTently heing performed in accordance with manufacturers recommendations.

GSU's commitment to the DRQR Report is designed to increase reliabtltty of the Divtslon I and IIdiesel generators.

Thus, there Is no Increase In the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previouely evaluated because the change clarifies existing commitments presently being adhered to. The Rtvei Bend Station Unit 1 Facility Operating Ltcense (NPF-47) currently contains a condition that GSU shall Implement the TDI requirements as incorporated within the license. By Implementing the recommendations of Revision 2 of Appendix IIof the TDI DRQR Report, GSU willbe implementing a program that hes undergone extensive industry end regulatory review. (Re: "Safety Evaluation Report Re The Operability/Reliability of the Emergency Diesel Generators Manufactured by Transamerica Delavai. Inc~River Bend Station"W.R. Butler to W. J. Cahill, Jr.,

dated July 18, 1988.) The proposed change would change the Technical Specilications to be consistent with the commitments In the Facility Operating License.

Thus, no new or different kind of accident scenario ie introduced.

The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction In the margin of safety because the change makes the Technical Specifications consistent with the approved program which ensures that the design adequacy and manufacturing of the TDI diesel generators for nuclear standby service Is withtn the range normally assuined for diesel engines designed and manufactured In accordance with General Design Criterion (GDC) 17 and 10 CFR 50. Appendix B.

Thus, there is not a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

Accordingly, based on the licensees findings with which the staff concurs, the staff has made a proposed determination that the application involves no significant hazards consideration.

LocalPublic Document Room location: Government Documents Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803.

Altorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner.

Jr., Esq., Conner and Wetterhahn, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006.

NRC Project Director. Walter R.

Butler.

GulfStates Utilities Company, Docket No. ~58, River Bend Station, Unit 1 West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana Dale ofomendment request: August 29, 1986.

Descriplion ofamendment request:

Technical Specification 3.5.3.

"Suppression Pool," establishes the LimitingConditions for Operation for operability of the suppression pool. This amendment request adds the Suppression Pool Pumpback System (SPPS) to Technical Specification 3.5.3 to ensure it is considered as required equipment for suppression pool operability.

During the development of the Technical SpeciTications for the full ower license, GSV committed in a etter dated November 18, 1985 (RBG-

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices 37513 22622) to include the SPPS as part of the River Bend Technical Specifications to clarify that SPPS is a necessary subsystem to ensure opefability of the suppression pool. The NRC staff requested the development and use of limitingconditions for operation, surveillance requirements. and bases.

The application for amendment is to satisfy the GSU commitment to include the provisions governing the SPPS as part of the River Bend Technical Specifications.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facility in accordance with a 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 licensee has provided the followinganalysis of significant hazards considerations in its August 29. 1986 request for a license amendment.

The proposed change does not include a significcnt increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously cvaiuctcd because the change only identifies thc SPPS as a necessary subsystem to ensure operability of thc suppression pool. This change does not involve a design change or physical change to thc plant.

Thus. there is no increase in the probability" or conscqucnccs of any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because this change only provides explicit requirements to have the SPPS identified as an integral part of suppression pool system. This change does not Involve a design change or physical change with respect to new or modified cquipmcnt. nor does it involve a change in the mode of operating existing equipment.

Thus. no new accident scenario ts introduced by this clarification of requirements for suppression pool operability.

The proposed change docs not involve a significant reduction tn the margin of safety because this cisriiication of requirements for suppression pool operability significantly rcduccs the possibility, of not considering SPPS as part of suppression pool operability, which would enhance safety rather than reduce the margin of safety.

The staff concurs with the above analysis. Accordingly. the staff has made a proposed determination that the application involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room Location: Government Documents Department. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Louisiana 70803.

Attorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.. Conner and Wetterhahn, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20006.

NRC Project Director: Walter R.

Butler.

Iowa Electric Light and Power Company, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa Date ofamendment request: August 29, 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) Technical Specification Section 3.3.C to change the basis for verifying rod scram times from the present basis; scram timing to percentage ofrod insertion, to scram timing to actual rod position. The rod scram times in Subsections 3.3.C.1 and 3.3.C.2 of Section 3.3.C would be changed to correspond directly with the rod positions as utilized in the General Electric ODYN Option B Computer Reload Analysis. Changing the scram time in Subsection 3.3.C.3 of Section 3.3.C to directly correspond to the proposed even rod position 04 instead of 90% inserted is not necessary because rod position 04 is equivalent to 91.6%

inserted and is therefore still conservative. The Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.3.C would also be revised to clarify rod scram time testing based on rod position rather than percentage insertion.

The amendment also proposes to administratively revise Technical Specification numbering of subsections in the Bases discussions to match the numbering system in the Technical Specification sections being addressed and correct nomenclature errors in the basis discussions.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards considerotion determinationr The Coinmission has provided standards (10 CFR 50.92(c)) for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a signiTicant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (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 staff has reviewed the licensee's request and finds that the proposed amendment:

(1) Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences qf an accident previously evaluated because the veriTication of scram times can be based on a percentage ofrod insertion from fully withdrawn or on indicated rod position from fullywithdrawn provided the scram insertion times correspond to either basis. Both the percentage insertion basis with corresponding scram times and the rod position basis with the corresponding scram times are utilized in the General Electric ODYN Option B Computer Reload Analysis.

Therefore, either basis for scram time testing demonstrates the ability of the control rod system to bring the reactor subcritical at a rate fast enough to prevent fuel damage, i.e., to prevent the MCPR from becoming less than the safety limit.The change from percentage insertion to equivalent even rod position in Section 3.3.C.3 willprovide uniformity in the basis of all rod scram timing activities in the plant. Changing the scram time to directly correspond to the proposed even rod position 04 instead of 90% insertion is not necessary because rod position 04 is equivalent to 91.67%

insertion and is therefore still conservative.

(2) Does not create a possibility of a new. or different kind ofaccident because neither the rod scram insertion tIme requirements nor the equipment or process involved has changed. Rod scram time testing based on rod position is consistent with established plant testing capabilities and procedures and willincrease the accuracy ofrod scram time testing.

(3) Does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the margin of safety derived from the General Electric ODYN Option B Computer Analysis MCPR limits is based on verifying average rod insertion times utilized in the reload analysis. The rod positions and corresponding rod scram times proposed in this amendment are utilized in the General Electric ODYNOption B Computer Reload Analysis. Therefore, the MCPR limits defined by this analysis, remain unchanged. The administrative changes proposed in this amendment are to-achieve consistency in nomenclature throughout the Technical Specifications.

Therefore, the staff has made a proposed determination that the

S7514 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices

. application involves no significant hazards co'nsidera tion.

Local Public Document Room locotion:'Cedar Rapids Public Library, 500 First Street. S. E, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401.

Attorneyforlicensea Jack Newman.

Esquire. Kathleen H. Shee, Esquire, Newman and Holtzinger, 1615 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. 2003B.

NRC Praj ect Director: Daniel R.

Muller.

Louisiana Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit S, St. Charles Perish, Louisiana, Date ofAmendment Bequest:

September 25, 1988 Description ofAmendment Request.

The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification 3/4.10.1, SPECIAL TEST EXCEPTIONS, SHUTDOWN MARGIN.

Technical Specification S.10.1 resently allows the shutdown margin to e reduced to less than the normal operating shutdown margin requirements during low power physics testing provided that certain conditions are satisfied. One of these conditions (Surveillance Requirement 4.10.1.2) stipulates that all Control Element Assemblies (CEAs) not fullyinserted In the core be shown to be capable offull insertion when tripped from at least the 50%.withdrawn position within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> prior to reducing the shutdown margin to less than normal operating requirements. The requested revision would allow this surveillance to be performed within 7 days of the shutdown margin reduction instead of within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> as presently required.

This modification is proposed to allow low power physics testing to be accomplished without an additional reactor trip to verify CEA insertability.

The starts test program includes a CEA trip test before criticalityto measure CEA drop times (reference Technical Specification 3.1.2.3). Following these measurements, criticalityis achieved and low power physics tests are performed, CEA integral reactivity worths are determined during this testing sequence and may require reduction of shutdown margin as permitted by Technical Specificatio 3.10.1. Since the worth measurements are typically performed several days after the CEA drop time measurements, the reactor must be tripped to verify CEA insertability and satisfy Surveillance Requirement 4.10.1.2. The requested revision would therefore eliminate the need for an additional

~ reactor tripduring low power physics testing by requiring verification of CEA insertability within7days of reducing the shutdown margin instead of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

The primary consideration in extending the surveillance time period for verifying CEA insertability is whether there would be a significant increase in the probability of a stuck CEA during the 7-day period of time as compared to the present 24-hour time period. Consideration of the configuration of the components that are used in CEA insertion indicate that there is nothing which would cause a significant increase In the probability of a CEA becoming stuck This is due to the fixed geometry of these components over the 7-day period that could elapse between rod drop time measurements and shutdown margin reduction. The components considered include the fuel assembly, the CEA, the CEA extension shaft, the control element drive mechanism and the upper guide structure. Also, since the CEAs will insert upon loss ofpower. the probability of a stuck CEA is not increased due to an electrical malfunction.

This change is similar to changes issued to other CE plants.

Basis forProposed No Significant Hazards Considerations Determination:

The NRC staff proposes that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration

because, as required by the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92(c), operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan 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 the margin of safety. The basis for this proposed finding is given below,

'1) The proposed change does not remove the trip surveillance requirement. It merely allows for a 7-day surveillance requirement rather than the 24-hour surveillance requirement. During this interim. there would be no significant increase in the probability of a stuck CEA since there is nothing occurring during this period which would alter the fixed geometry of components associated with the rod time measurements.

Therefore, the proposed change willnot involve a significant increase In the probability or

'consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

(2) This revision addresses a change in surveillance requirement and as such no new failure or accident path is created. Consequently, there willbe no creation of a new or different kind of

.accident from any accident previously evaluated.

(3) Although the trip surveillance requirement is'relaxed from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to seven days, there is no signiTicant increase in the probability of a stuck CEA with the new surveillance requirement. As such. this change will not include a significant reduction in margin ofsafety.

As the change requested by the licensee's September 25, 1986 submittal satisfies the criteria of 50.92, it is concluded that: (1) the proposed change does not constitute a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10 CFR M.92; (2) there is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public willnot be endangered by the proposed change: and (3) this action willnot result in a condition which significantly alters the impact of the station on the environment as described in the NRC Final Environmental Statement.

Local Public Document Room Location: University ofNew Orleans Library, Louisiana Collection. Lakefront, New Orleans, Louisiana 70122.

Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. Bruce W.

Churchill, Esq.. Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N St., NW.

Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Praj ect Director: George W.

Knighton.

Louisiana Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, Date ofAmendment Request.

September 25, 198B.

Description ofAmendment Request:

The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification 3/4.10.3, SPECIAL TEST EXCEPTIONS, REACTOR COOLANTLOOPS.

In order to perform certain physics tests at low thermal power levels, it is necessary to bypass the core protection calculators (CPCs). This is accomplished by manually bypassing the calculators after increasing the CPC operating bypass permissive setpoint from 10 'R power to a value that willallow physics testing to take place without incurring a DNBRlow or LPDHigh reactor trip.

This adjustment is made to a bistable setpoint in the log power circuitry.

Consequently, Technical SpeciTication 3.10.3.b requires that the Linear Power LevelHigh trip setpoint be decreased to less than or equal to 20% RA'IXD THERMALPOWER. This provides additional assurance that a reactor trip willoccur in the event ofan unplanned power excursionmhile the operating bypass permissive setpoint is set to a higher than normal value.

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1988 / Notices 37515 The addition ofTechnical Specification 3.10.3.c is 4@ng proposed to provide an alternate means of ensuring a reactor trip prior to exceeding the present limitfor physics testing at low thermal power levels. The CPC operating bypass permissive bistable serves the dual function of permitting the Log Power Level-High trip to be manually bypassed when the thermal power exceeds the operating bypass permissive setpoint. Ifthe permissive setpoint is increased to a value greater than the Log Power LevelHigh trip setpoint specified in Table 2.2-1 ofTechnical Specification 2.2.1. then a Low Power LevelHigh reactor trip willoccur ifan unplanned power excursion takes place during physics testing. Therefore. the Log Power Level trip function may be used in place of the Linear Power Level trip function to provide additional assurance that a reactor trip willoccur in the event of an unplanned power excursion during physics testing.

Basis forProposed No Significant llazards Consideration Determination:

The NRC staff proposes that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration

because, as required by the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92(c), operation of the facilityin 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 the margin of safety. The basis for this proposed finding is given below.

(1) This proposed change would increase the power level at which the CPC's enable the DNBRLow and LPDHigh reactor trips. Protection, however, would still be provided through this increase by the Log Power LevelHigh reacto~ trip. Since ample protection is still supplied, there willbe no significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

(2) Although this proposed change would alter the range of application for certain trips, proper core protection would be still supplied. No other functional changes are proposed to be made to these trips; consequently. this change can neither create nor involve a new path which may lead to a new or different kind of accident.

~

(3) As stated above, the proposed change would alter the range of application for certain trip functions.

Protection, however. would still be provided for over this increase. Since there willbe no reduction in trip coverage, this proposed change can not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.

As the change requested by the licensee's September 25. 1988. submittal satisfies the criteria of 50.92, it Is concluded that: (1) the proposed change does not constitute a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10 CFR 50.92; (2) there is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public willnot be endangered by the proposed change: and (3) this action willnot result in a condition which significantly alters the impact of the station on the environment as described in the NRC Final Environmental Statement.

Local Public Document Boom Location: Univerisity of New Orleans Library, Louisiana Collection. Lakefront, New Orleans, Louisiana 70122.

Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. Bruce W.

Churchill, Esq.. Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N St.. NW.

Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director: George W.

Knighton.

Louisiana Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Perish, Louisiana Dote ofomendment request; October 1, 1988.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed change would revise Technical Specification 3.1.2.9.

"Reactivity Control Systems, Boron Dilution",Surveillance Requirement 4.1.2.9.4 and the associated Bases section (3/4.1.2.9). The reasons for this change+re: (1) The Cycle 2 core will have higher enriched fuel and is therefore more reactive than the Cycle 1 core; (2) the Shutdown Margin for Cycle 2 is lower than it was for Cycle 1(when all Control Element Assemblies are inserted); and (3) it is desirable to have more than one charging pump operable when the reactor is in Mode 5 and the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Is partially drained. Specifically, the proposed change willallow the use of two charging pumps when fillingthe RCS as long as the k-effis maintained at a value less than 0.98.

Specification 3.1.2.9b currently requires removing power to two charging pumps when the reactor is in Mode 5 and the RCS is partially drained.

The proposed change would replace this Specification with statements that allow more than one charging pump to be operable depending on the multiplication factor in the core. That is, Ifthe k-eff is between 0.94 and 0.98 it is permissible to have 2 charging pumpir operable or, ifthe k-effIs less than 0.94, it is permissible to have all three charging pumps operable. In addition, Table 3.1-1 willbe replaced with a series ofTables (Tables 3.1-1 through 3.1-5) that provide the required boron sampling frequency as a function of the core multiplication factor that must be adhered to whenever the boron dilution alarm(s) is not operable. By monitoring the boron concentration at these frequencies. the operators willhave sufficient time to mitigate a boron dilution event prior to the loss of shutdown margin.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards considerotion determinotion:

The NRC staff proposes that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration

because, as required by the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92(c). operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofany 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 the margin 'of safety. The basis for this proposed finding is given below.

(1) This Specification is provided to ensure the operators have sufficient time. from when they are first alerted to a potential boron dilution, to take the appropriate corrective action to mitigate the event. Normally. protection against this event is provided by two redundant alarms that actuate when the existing neutron fluxdoubles. With one or both of (hase alarms inoperable. the Cycle 2 safety analyses have shown that by monitoring the RCS boron concentration at the frequencies shown in Tables 3.1-1 through 3.1-5 the operators have sufficient time to take the actions necessary to mitigate the event. Since this Specification applies only to the Boron Dilution event, and the Cycle 2 Safety Analyses have shown that the consequences of this event are acceptable, the proposed change will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

(2) The proposed change is primarily a result of changes in the Cycle 2 core parameters and the desire to use more than one charging pump to fillthe RCS following a refueling or followingany maintenance that requires the RCS to be partially drained. There has been no physical change to the plant other than to allow an additional charging puinp(s) to be operable ifthe core multiplication factor is low enough. The only accident that could be caused by an additional charging pump in operation Is a boron

S7516 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices dilution which has already been shown to have acceptable results. Thus, the proposed change willnot create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

(3) The intent of this Speciflcation is to prevent a boron dilution event or to prevent a loss of shutdown margin should a boron dilution event occur.

Normally, this event is precluded by isolating the primary makeup water or by the operability of the high neutron flux alarms which alert the operator with sufficient time to take corrective action. The action statements of this Speciflcation provide an alternate means to detect a boron dflutlon event by monitoring the RCS boron concentration to detect any changes.

The frequencies specified in Table 3.1-1 through 3.1-5 provide the operator with sufficient time to recognize a decrease in the RCS boron concentration and take the appropriate corrective action prior to the loss ofshutdown margin. More

.frequent checks of the RCS boron concentration are required when more charging pumps are operable or when there is a higher core multiplication factor because there is less time available for the operators to take corrective action. Thus, the proposed change does not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

As the change requested by the licensee's October 1, 1986 submittal satisfies the criteria of 50.92, it is concluded that: (1) the proposed change does not constitute a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10 CFR 50.92; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public willnot be endangered by the proposed change; and (3) this action willnot result in a condition which significantly alters the impact of the station on the environment as described in the NRC Final Environmental Statement.

'ocal Public Document Room Locotion: University ofNew Orleans Library, Louisiana Collection. Lakefront, New Orleans, Louisiana 70122.

Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. Bruce W.

Churchill, Esq., Shaw. Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N St., NW Washington. DC 20037.

NRCPact Director. George W.

Knighton.

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Docket No. 50-309, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station, Lincoln County, Maine Dote ofamendmenl request: January

29. 1986, revised July 29, 1966 and August 28. 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would:

(1) Delete the definition of containment integrity in the Definitions Section of the TS since the definition appears in the actual Technical SpeciTications concerning containment integrity.

(2) Remove the term "where appropriate" from Section 3.6, "Emergency Core Cooling and Containment Spray Systems," and insert a reference to Specification 3.9 for clarity.

(3) Restate Technical SpeciTication 3.14B for cIarity and delete a reference to Cycle 7 which is no longer appropriate.

(4) Correct a misprint in the description of the concentration term C, for secondary coolant activity in Technical Specification 3.14.

(5) Divide the Technical Specification Section 3.15 concerning reactor power anomalies into a Speciflcation and Remedial Action for clarity, and the term steady-state concentrations is used to distinguish brief transients from ongoing conditions.

(6) Add the term "fluoride" to the reactor coolant sample chemistry requirement ofTechnical Specification Section 4.2 to be consistent with the requirements ofTechnical Specifications Section 3.18.

(7) Delete the requirement to calibrate the post-accident hydrogen monitor in Table4'fTechnical Specification Section 4.2 as it is included in Table 4.1-3.

(8) Revise Technical SpeciTication Section 58 to indicate the speciflc revision to Regulatory Guide W3 to which Maine Yankee has been and is currently committed in their Quality Assurance Program.

(9) Change Table 4.1-2 ofTechnical Specification Section 4.1 to reflect the upgrade to the Refueling Water Storage Tank level instrumentation made during the 1985 refueling outage and clarify the function being tested as that part of the recirculation actuation signaL In addition, typographical errors would be corrected and changes would be made to the Bases for TS 3.11, 322 and 3.24 to correct cross references, clarify applicability requirements. and correct misprints to conform with the Final Safety Analysis Report.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinati ant The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazard exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). 10 CFR 50.91 requires that at the time a licensee requests an amendment it must provide to the Commission its analysis, using the standards in 10 CFR 50.92, about the issue ofno significant hazards consideration. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 10 CFR 50.92, the followinganalysis has been performed by the licensee:

Much of this rcqueat consists of changes dealgned to clarify or aimplify the Specificattona without altering the actual requtremeiita. Other changes correct mlaapelling or minor typographical errors in both the Specifications and Bases.

We have reviewed this proposal as required by 10 CFR 50.92 io determine whether a significant hazards consideration may exist. A summary of our findings ia as follows.

Those proposed changes which ere for the purpose of Improving clarity. are mere restructuring without altering hteni or requirements or which correct typographical errors, which have been categorically determined not to involve a significant hazards consideration.

From the foregoing we have concluded that the changes proposed would not:

1. Involve a significant Increase fn the probability or conaequencca of an accident previouaiy analyzed; or

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed: or

3. Involve a significant reduction in the mergin of safety.

Hence, no significant hazards conatderatlon exists.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis. Therefore, based on this review. the staff proposes to determine that the application for amendment involves no signiTicant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Wiscasset Public Library, High Street, Wiscasset. Maine.

Attorneyforlicensee: J.A. Ritscher, Esq., Ropes and Gray, 225 Franklin Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02210.

NRC Project Director: Ashok C.

Thadani.

Nebraska PubHc Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemeha County, Nebraska Dates ofamendment requesls:

February 10, 19M; September 9, 1986.

Description ofamendment request; The February 10, 1986 submittal was previously published in the Federal Register on April9. 1986 (51 FR 11230)

~

The September 9, 1986 submittal revised the February 10. 1986 application to conform to Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-0123). The amendment would modify the Technical Specifications (TS) applicable to high radiation areas: (1)It would be specified that measurements for the determination of high radiation areas are to be made at a distance of 18 inches from the source

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1988 / Notices 37517 of radiation: (2) "Barricade" would be clarified as including."doors, yellow and magenta rope. turnstile" or other device to impede physical movement across the entrance or access to the radiation area; (3) The requirement that entrance to high radiation areas be controlled by the shift supervisor would be replaced by a reouirement that it be controlled by a Special Work Permit. Radiation protection personnel and those they are escorting would be exempt from the requirement for a Special Work Permit during the performance of their assigned duties while followingplant radiation protection procedures for entry into high radiation areas; (4) A requirement would be added that personnel entering high radiation areas. unless provided with a monitoring device which continuously indicates the dose rate. be provided with a monitoring device which continuously integrates the dose rate and alarms at a preset integrated dose, or with a qualified escort with a dose rate monitoring device who is responsible for providing positive control over the activities in the area and shall perform periodic dose rate monitoring at a speciTied frequency; and (5) Additional requirements would be added applicable for high radiation areas accessible to personnel in which a major portion of the body could receive in one hour a dose greater than 1000 mrem. These additional requirements would require that:

...areas accessible to personnel with dose rates such that a major portion of the body could receive in one hour a dose greater than 1000 mrem shall be provided with locked doors to prevent unauthorized entry.

Doors shall remain locked except during periods of access by personnel under an approved SWP which shall specify the dose rates in the immediate work area. For individual high radiation areas accessible to personnel that are located within large areas, such as the containment. or areas where no enclosure exists for purposes of locking and no enclosure can be reasonably constructed around the individual areas, then that area shall be barricaded and conspicuously posted. Area radiation monitors that have been set to alarm ifradiation levels increase, provide both a visual and an audible signal to alert personnel in the area of the increase.

Stay times or continuous surveillance by radiation protection personnel qualified in radiation protection procedures to provide additional positive exposure control over the activities within the area.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards determination exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation 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 signiTicant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed change does not alter existing equipment or surveillances. It willnecessitate changes to radiation protection procedures and the FSAR for the sake of uniformity and consistency between documents, but such procedural changes are of an administrative nature. do not impact plant operations, and willimprove control of high radiation areas. The proposed change would thus'not affect the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change does not introduce any new mode ofoperation.

and due to its administrative nature, does not involve any limitingconditions for operation or surveillances, Therefore. the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

No safety limits or limitingsafety system settings prescribed by the Technical SpeciTications would be affected. The proposed changes would provide for improved administrative controls for high radiation areas and willnot reduce the safety margin in any manner.

Sin'ce the application for amendment involves proposed changes that are encompassed by the criteria for which no significant hazards consideration exists, the staff has made a proposed determination that the application involves no signiTicant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room locatiom Auburn Public Library, 118 15th Street, Auburn. Nebraska 68305.

Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. G. D.

Watson. Nebraska Public Power District, Post Office Box 499. Columbus.

Nebraska 88601.

NRC Project Dt'rector. Daniel R.

Muller, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego County, New York Date ofomendment request.

September 15, 1988.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would modify.

Technical Specification (TS) Sections 8.2.2 and L3 and Table 8.2-1 to reflect changes required to conform to tha Nuclear Regulatory Commission's "Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift." Generic Letter 88-

04. Specifically. the Shift Technical Advisor would be a licensed Senior Reactor Operator and would also perform the function ofAssistant Station Shift Supervisor. In addition, the "equivalency" option to a bachelor' degree in a scientific or engineering discipline would be removed from the Shift Technical Advisor job description and the alternative for a ProfessionaL Engineer's license would be added.

Basis forproposed no significant hozards considerrrtion determination:

The Commission has pro'vided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c).

The licensee has presented its determination of no significant hazards consideration as follows:

10 CFR $0.91 requires that at the time a licensee requests an amendment. it must provide to the Commission its analysis. using the standards in Section 50.92 about the issue of no significant hazards consideration.

Therefore. in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 10 CFR 50.92. the followinganalysis has been performed:

The operotion ofNine MilePoint UnitIin accordance with the proposed amendment willnot involve a signi/icantincreasein the piebobi%'ty or consequences ofan accident previously evoluoted.

These administrative changes willbring the Technical Specifications into agreement with the NRC Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift. The Assistant Station Shift Supervisor function. training and kducat tonal background willmeet the applicable NRC requirements. Qualifications of other staff members has not changed.

Therefore, this change willnot increase the probability or consequences of an accident.

The operotion ofNine MilePoint Unittin accordance with the pnrposed amendment willnot create the possibility ofa new or different kindofoccident fiom any occident previously evaluated.

The proposed changes are administrative and do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

The operotion ofNine MilePoint Unittin accordance with the proposed amendment willnot involve o significant reduction in o margin ofsafety.

The proposed administrative changes do not change staffing levels or staff training.

Consequently, there is no reduction in margin ofsafety.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis. Therefore, the staff proposes to determine that the application for amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room loco!ion:

S7518 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices State University ofNew York, Penfield Library. Reference and Documents Department, Oswego, New York 13126.

, Attorneyforlicensee:

Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire, Conner &

Wetterhahn, Suite1050,1747 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW.,

Washington, DC 20006.

NRC Pro/ect Director:

John A. Zwolinski.

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Nuciear Power Station Unit 3 New London County, Connecticut Date ofopplicotion foramendment:

August 28, 1988 Description ofomendment request:

The amendment would revise Technical Specification. Section 8.5.3.2 to change the quorum required to conduct a meeting of the Millstone Unit No. 3 Nuclear Review Board to four. By replacing "enough to constitute a majority of the assigned members," with J

"four"Section 6.5.3.2 willbe consistent; with the information contained in the Millstone Units No. 1 and 2 Technical Specifications.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The staff has evaluated this proposed amendment and determined that it involves no significant hazards considerations. According to 10 CFR 50.92(c), a proposed amendment to an operating license involves no signiTicant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facilityin 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 proposed amendment clarifies the language used to convey the requirement for the number ofNRB members necessary to constitute a quorum. The current specification contains a requirement for a quorum size ranging from 4 members to 8 members, depending on the size of the NRB. The proposed change would require a minimum quorum of four members. This change would bring the Millstone Unit No. 3 Technical Specifications into agreement with those of Millstone Units No. 1 and 2 and the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications.

Although the proposed change is not enveloped by the three criteria in 10

, CFR 50.92(c), the staff believes this proposed amendment involves no significant hazards considerations because it is a clarification of language.

LocolPublic Document Room Locotioru Waterford Public Library. 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford Connecticut 06385.

Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Garfield, Esq., Day, Berry, and Howard, City Place. Hartford, Connecticut 08103-3499.

NRC Project Director: Vincent S.

Noonan Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska Dale ofamendment requesL September 28, 1986.

Description ofamendment requestt The amendment would change the Technical Specifications to incorporate organizational changes. Specifically, it would change titles to reflect recent promotions and incorporate some organizational restructuring.

Organizational changes include moving the training program from the organizational chart for the Fort Calhoun Station staff and placing it under the newly titled position of Manager-Administrative and Training Services; Engineering and Electric Operations willreport to a Vice President in charge ofEngineering and General Services instead of a Senior Vice President; a new position of Supervisorutage Projects has been created; and the positions of Supervisor-Administrative Services and Supervisor-Security are now shown on Figure 5-2.

Figures 5-1 and 5-2 have been revised to reflect these organizational changes.

Basis forprOposed no significont hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists by providing certain examples (51 FR 7751) ofamendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations.

Example (i) relates to a change that is administrative in nature, intended to achieve consistency or correct an error.

The proposed changes are representative of Example (i) in that they reflect title and organizational changes that are administrative in nature only. The changes are designed to assist in the more efficient utilization of licensee staff personnel.

The staff has also concluded that the proposed changes meet the criteria of10 CFR 50.92. A discussion of the criteria follows:

(1) Involve any significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The changes are administrative in nature and do not result in any changes to the design or functioning of the plant.

Specifically, there are no physical modifications being made to the plant and no changes to the way in which the plant is controlled by the operators.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

Since the changes do not result in any plant modiTications or operating procedures, no new path is created that may lead to a new or different kind of accident.

(3) Involve any reduction in the margin of safety.

The specific purpose of the changes is to reflect the new titles and organizational restructuring implemented by the licensee. This will not affect safety margins in a positive or negative manner.

Based on the above, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed amendment involves no signiTicant hazards considerations.

Local Public Document Room localiom W. Dale Clark Library. 215 South 15th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102.

Attorneyforlicensee: LeBoeuf, Lamb.

Leiby, and MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue. NW., Washington.

DC 20036.

NRC Project Directort Ashok C.

The dani Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California Dale forrequest amendment: July 18, 1986 (Reference LAR 86-08).

Description offorrequest amendment:

The proposed amendments would revise the Diablo Canyon combined Technical Specifications (T.S.) for Units 1 and 2 to implement relaxed axial offset control (RAOC) for Unit 2 after 8000 MWD/

MTUburnup in Cycle 1 and upon NRC approval of the Unit 2 emergency core cooling system (ECCS) reevaluation using the BARTEvaluation Model.

ROAC is currently being used for Unit 1 only. The proposed revision to Technical Specification 3/4.2.1, "AxialFlux Difference," includes RAOC for Unit 2 and revises the existing Technical SpeciTication 3/4.2.1.1 to be applicable to Units 1 and 2. The bases for Technical Specification 3/4:2.1 willalso be revised to include RAOC for Unit 2.

These changes to implement RAOC are based upon the analysis performed

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices by Westinghouse for Cycle 1 of Diablo Canyon Unit 2. The NRC-approved procedure outlined in WCAP-10216-PA was used for the analysis. A heat flux hot channel factor (F~ of 2.32 was used in the analysis. In accordance with the NRC March 3. 1988, exemption from a requirement of 10 CFR 50.46. Unit 2 is restricted to a maximum F< of 2.30.

PGSE letter DCL-88-036. dated February

14. 1988, provided information demonstrating that the results of the ECCS reevaluation with the BART Model are expected to confirm a sufficient calculated peak clad temperature margin with an F< of 2.32.

Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Cansideratian Determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves a no significant hazards consideration ifoperation 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: (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 licensee has determined that the proposed revision willnot:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the results of the Westinghouse evaluation confirm that the full range of normal and accident conditions possible with the proposed RAOC limits are consistent with the safety analysis in the FSAR (Update. Revision 1). The analysis is based on a Westinghouse safety evaluation using the NRC-approved procedure outlined in WCAP-10218-PA. The Westinghouse evaluation generates axial flux difference as a function of power that is used as input in the accident analyses.

(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated as confirmed in the plant-specific Westinghouse safety evaluation discussed above.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety as confirmed in the plant-specific Westinghouse safety evaluation discussed above for the full range ofnormal and accident conditions possible with the proposed change to the Technical Specifications involves a no significant hazards consideration.

The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed amendment request and the licensee's determination and finds it acceptable; Therefore, the staff proposes to determine that a no significant hazards consideration is involved in the proposed amendment.

Local Public Document Room Location: California Polytechnic State University Library. Government Documents and Maps Department, San Luis Obispo, California 93407.

Attorneys forLicensee: Philip A.

Crane. Esq., Richard F. Locke, Esq Pacific Gas and Electric Company. P.O.

Box 7442, San Francisco. California 94120 and Bruce Norton, Esq,. Norton and West. P.O. Box 10569. Phoenix.

Arizona 85064, NRC Project Director; Steven A.

'Varga.

Portland General Electric Company, et al Docket No. 50-344, Trojan Nuclear Plant, Columbia County, Oregon Date ofamendment request: July 17, 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

The amendment proposes changes to the surveillance requirements for the emergency core cooling system pumps, as stated in Sections 4.1.2.3, 4.1.2.4, and 4.5.2.i of the Technical Specifications (TS). The followingspecific changes are proposed:

Technical Specification 4.7.23The surveillance requirement for the centrifugal charging pump (CCP) operability requirement for Modes 5 and 8 willbe changed toi "verifying, that on recirculation flow. the pump develops a differential pressure greater than or equal to 2400 psid when tested pursuant to Tech@ical Specification 4.L5 Tecbnical Speci fication 4; 74.4The surveillance requirement for the CCP operability requirement for Modes 1, 2,

3. and 4 willbe changed tax "verifying, that on recirculation flaw, each pump develops a differential pressure greater than or equal to 2400 psid when tested pursuant to Technical SpeciTication 4.0.5."

Technical Specification 4.5.2.i The surveillance requirement for the ECCS pump performance veriflcation willbe changed to: "Byverifying that each of the followingpumps develops the indicated differential pressure on recirculation flow when tested pursuant to Technical Specification 4.08:

(1) Centrifugal charging pump greater than or equal to 2400 psid.

(2) Safety injection pump greater than or equal to 1455 paid, and (3) RHR pump greater than or equal to 157 psid."

The current Technical SpeciTications require verification of the respective pumps'ischarge pressure rather than the differential pressure. The current TS also specifies RHR pump discharge pressure ofgreater than or equal to 165 psig versus the proposed differential pressure of 157 psid.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination: 10 CFR 50.92 states that a proposed amendment willinvolve a no'sfgniflcant hazards consideration'if the proposed amendment does not: (i) Involve a sfgnificant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (ii) Create the possibility of a new o'r different kind of accident'rom any accident previously"ev'aluated:

or (iii)Involve a significant reduction fn a margin of safety. Accordingly, the staff performed the followinganalysis:

(i) and (ii).Does the proposed amendment Involve a significant increase in the probability or.

consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or create the possibility ot a

'ew or different kind of accident from any previously evaluatedl The licensee has 'stated that pump discharge prcssure is not a true

'ndication of pump performance since it fs dependent upon pump suction'ressure.

Averification of pump differential pressure provides a more accurate means of assessing pump performance. Furthermore these values for the centrifugal charging pumps and safety injection pumps are consistent with those used in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 15 accident analysis.

Due to degradation of RHR pump A.

Westinghouse has determined the new requirement for the RHR pumps should be 157 psid at 800 gpm recirculation flow.Although the value of 157 psld is 8 psi lower than the current limitof 165 psi, the RHR system willstill meet its design function of cooling the RCS to and maintaining the RCS at shutdown temperatures. providing low-head injection and recirculation during LOCA conditions, and transferring water between the Refueling Water Storage Tank and the refueling cavity. During cooldown operations, flow through the heat exchangers meets the design basis of 3,000 gpm as specified in TS 4.9.8.1."

The most limitingLOCA analysis is for

'hat of a large break The new value of RHR pump head requires an additional 0.25 seconds of accumulator/safety injection flow to achieve the peak clad temperature (PCT) twn-around. This

'.25 seconds of additional heatup results In an 11 'F increase of-PCT to 2001 'F.

This PCT of 2001 'F is well within the, 2200 'F 10 CFR 50.48 limit.The, third function, the transfer of RCS water for refueling, fs a nonsafety-related

'unction.

37520 o

e Federa) Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices As such. the proposed changes do not (i) increase the probability or consequences of an accident. and (ii) create a new or different kind of accident.

(iii)Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

The licensee stated that the margin of safety (the capability of boron injection and emergency core cooling) provided by the safety injection, charging and RHR pumps willbe improved by replacing the imprecise requirements with those specified in this amendment request which willproduce more precise results by changing the units from psi to psid.

The safety injection and centrifugal charging pump heads are the original numbers used by Westinghouse in the FSAR Chapter 15 accident analysis and,

&us. no reduction in the margin of safety is being made. While a reduction in the requirement of RHR pump head does reduce in a small way the margin of safety, the results of the change dearly fall inside the acceptance criteria of the Standard Review Plan section b.3i The RHR pump willstill be capable of meeting design flowrequirements through the RHR heat exchangers and a 199 'F margin to PCT willbe maintained.

As such. the proposed changes do not significantly reduce a margin of safety.

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of these standards by providing certain examples (March 8. 1988, 51 FR 7751).

Examples ofamendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations are (ii) a change which constitutes an additional limitation, restriction or control not presently included in the technical speciTications, e.g. ~ a more stringent surveillance requirement: and (vi) a change which either may result in some increase to the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident or may reduce in some way a safety margin. but where the results of the change are clearly within all acceptable criteria with respect to the system or component specified in the Standard Review Plan.

~..

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards analysis and concludes that the proposed changes are within the scope of the Commission's cited examples. Thus. the staff proposes to determine that the requested changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room locationi Multnomah County Library, 801 S.W. 10th Avenue, Portland, Oregon.

Attorneyforlicensee: J.W. Durham, Senior Vice President. Portland General Electric Company. 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Portland, Oregon 97204.

NRC Project Director: Steven A,

Varga, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos.60-272 and 50-S11, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey Date ofamendments request: October S, 1986.

Description ofamendments request:

The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification 5.3.1 for Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2 in order to allow for reconstitution of fuel assemblies containing defective rods. The current Technical Specification 6.3.1 states that each fuel assembly shall contain 264 fuel rods clad with ZircaloyA.The proposed change would allow for a reduction in the number of fuel rods per assembly in cases where leaking fuel rods are identified and replaced with either filler rods (consisting of either Zircaloyd or stainless steel), or vacancies. This will permit utilization of the remaini energy in the fuel assemblies containing defective fuel rods.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinationi The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists by providing certain examples (51 FR 7751). The example of actions which involve no signiTicant consideration include Example (iii)which states: "For a nuclear power reactor, a change resulting from a nuciear reactor core reloading. ifno fuel assemblies significantly different from those found previously acceptable to the NRC for a previous core at the facilityin question are involved. This assumes that no significant changes are made to the acceptance criteria for the technical specifications, that analytical methods used to demonstrate conformance with technical specifications and regulations are not significantly changed and that the NRC has previously found such methods acceptable." The reconstituted assemblies willmeet the original design criteria. The analytical methods used willremain unchanged. Therefore, the staff proposes to determine that the proposed change, the use of reconstituted fuel assemblies does not pose a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room locotioni Salem Free Library. 122 West Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 0807.

Attorneyforlicensee: Conner and Wetterhann, Suite 1050, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20006.

NRC Project Directori Vincent S.

Noon an.

Sacramento Municipal UtilityDistrict, Docket No. 50-312, Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, Sacramento County, California Date ofamendment requesti November 8, 1985 (Supersedes amendment request dated November 14, 1984. in its entirety).

Description ofomendment request: In response to Generic Letter 83-28. an automatic shunt trip attachment has been installed at Rancho Seco.

Accordingly, the proposed amendment would incorporate into the Technical Specifications (TSs) necessary Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) and surveillance requirements for the shunt trip attachment and applicable silicon controlled rectifiers (SCRs). Specifically, TS LCOs in section 3.5.1 willbe affected, including associated surveillance requirements and bases statements.

Bosis forproposed no significant hazards consi deration determi natl oni As a consequence of the Salem Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) event. Item 4.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 established requirements for automatic actuation of a shunt trip attachment on reactor trip breakers.

Furthermore, licensees were instructed to submit appropriate TS change requests prior to declaring the modiTied system operable. Item 4.4 required the TS changes to also include testing of the SCRs, which interrupt control rod power.

Guidance for submitting amendment requests was subsequently provided by the Commission's staff in Generic Letter 85-10.

.Based on guidance from Generic Letter 85-10 and Babcock 8 Wilcox Owners Group. the licensee has submitted a TS change request following the guidelines prescribed by 10 CFR 50.92 for determining no significant hazards considerations. The licensee has concluded from their analysis that operation of Rancho Seco in accordance with this proposed amendment:

1. Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, and

3. Does not involve a significant reduction in a ntargin of safety. The Commission's staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal for amending the

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No: 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1988 / Notices 3752'ancho Seco TSs. This amendment proposes to expand TS section 3.5.1 and Table 4.1-1 to provide LCOs and surveillance requiremeht's for specific components of the reactor trip system, i.e., control rod drive trip breakers, the diverse trip features and the regulating control rod power SCR electronic trips, in accordance with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 85-10.

Adding requirements for diverse trip features. due to the addition of the shunt trip attachment, and SCR electronic trips willassure the reliabilityof the reactor trip system is not reduced due to the inoperability ofany component. Thus.

these TS requirements willconstitute an additional control and not reduce the margin of safety.

This proposed amendment is in the same category as Example (ii)of amendments that are considered not likely to involve signiTicant hazards considerations (51 FR 7751) in that the change constitutes an additional control not presently included in the TSs.

Therefore. since the application for amendment involves proposed changes that are similar to an example for which no significant hazards considerations exist, the Commission has made a proposed determination that the application for amendment involves no

.significant hazards considerations.

Locol Public Document Room lucotiom Sacramento City-County Library. 828 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

Attorneyfor licensee: David S.

Kaplan. Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 6201 S Street, P.O. Box 15830, Sacramento, California 95813.

NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, VirgilC Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Fairfield County, South Carolfna Dale ofamendment request:

September 11, 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company requests a revision to the VirgilC. Summer Nuclear Station Technical Specifications. Design Features Section 5.3.1. "Fuel Assemblies." of the Technical Specifications identifies a maximum total fuel rod weight of 1766 grams of uranium. Recent improvements to the fuel design. including an as. built density increase and chamfered pellets with a reduced dish. have increased fuel weight slightly. These weight increases will cause the maximum fuel rod weight in subsequent fuel cycles to exceed the currently specified maximum value of 1768 grams. The proposed Technical Sp'ecification change willdelete the maximum total weight limitation per fuel rod contained in the Design Features Section.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration delermi natiom The actual uranium weight has no bearing on the power limits. power operating level or decay heat rate.

Technical Specifications on power and power distribution control the fission rate and, hence, the rate of decay heat production. The composition of the fuel is closely monitored to assure acceptable fuel performance for such things as',thermal conductivity. swelling and densification. Fission product generation is not sensitive to the mass of fuel involved but to the power level. As long as the power generated by the core is unaffected. there willbe no significant impact on the radiological source terms.

Uranium mass has no impact on emergency core cooling system loss of coolant accident (LOCA) analyses.

LOCA analyses are sensitive to parameters such as pellet diameter, pellet-clad gap. stack height shrinking factor and pellet density as they relate to pellet-temperature and volumetric heat generation. Individual fuel rod uranium weight, as currently reported in the Technical Specifications, is not explicity modeled in any non-LOCA event. Total uranium present in the core is input into the transient analyses, but is generated using a methodology independent of the value presented in the Technical Specifications.

The mass of uranium is accounted for in the standard fuel rod design through appropriate modeling of the fuel pellet geometry and initial fuel density.

Variations in uranium m(iss associated with allowable as-built variations, but within the specification limits for the pellet dimensions and initialdensity, are

'ccounted for in the reactor core design analyses and therefore have no impact on margin to reactor core design criteria.

The fuel rod uranium weight. currently found in the Technical Specifications is not a direct input to the analyses of either maximum seismic/LOCA fuel ass'embly dynamic response or the seismic response of the reactor vessel and internals, The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of these standards by providing certain examples (51 FR 7751). One of these, Example (iii),involving no significant hazards considerations is "... a change resulting from a nuclear reactor core reloading. ifno fuel assemblies significantly different from those found previously acceptable to the NRC for a previous core at the facilityin question are involved. This assumes that no significant changes are made to the acceptance criteria for the technical specifications, that the analytical methods used to demonstrate conformance with the technical specifications and regulations are not siqnificantly changed, and that NRC has previously found such methods acceptable." The proposed change matches the quoted example.

Therefore, based on these considerations and the example given above. the Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room

location: Fairfield County Library.

Garden and Washington Streets, Winnsboro. South Carolina 29180.

Attorneyforlicensee: Randolph IL Mahan, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. P.O. Box 764. Columbia.

South Carolina 29218.

NRC Project Director: Laster S.

Rubenstein.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Dote ofamendment request: March

• 1983, as supplemented September 30, 1988.

Description ofamendment request:

These amendments would change License Condition 2.C.(34) for Unit 1 and 2.C.(14) for Unit 2 to revise the implementation date for the modiTication necessary to comply with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.97, Revision 2.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The reason for the proposed change is to satisfy the schedule requirements approved by the staff in its June 15, 1985, letter from E. Adensam to H. G. Parris, "Issuance ofOrders Confirming Licensee Commitments on Emergency Response Capabilities." In the June 15, 1985, letter, the staff approved the implementation schedule for RG 1.97.

Revision 2; however, it required that the licensee commitment be confirmed by seperate license amendment.

The Commission has provided examples (51$R,7744) of actions not likely to involve a signiTicant hazards consideration. Example (i) of this guidance states that, "Apurely administrative change to technical specifications: For example. a change to achieve consistency throughout the technical specifications. correction of an error, or a change in nomenclatitre" would not likelyconstitute a significant hazard. The staff has reviewed the proposed amendments and concludes

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices that they fall within the envelope of Example (i).

Accordingly. the staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

LocolPublic Document Room

~

locotion: Chattanooga-Hamilton County Bicentennial Library. 1001 Broad Street.

Chattanooga. Tennessee 37401.

Attorneyforlicensee: Lewis E Wallace, Acting General Counsel.

Tennessee Valley Authority. 400 Commerce Avenue, E11B33, Knoxville, Tennessee S7902.

NRC Project Director: B. J.

Youngblood.

Washington Public Power Supply System, Docket No. 50-397, WNP-2, Richland, Washington Dotes ofamendment requester September 27, and November 8, 1985, and September 17, 1986.

Description ofaniendment request:

This proposed amendment, ifapproved, willchange the Administrative Controls section of the WN~ Technical Specifications. The proposed amendment involves administrative changes to Specification L4.1 and organizational charts L22 1a and LZ2-1b.

Technical Specification 6.4.1, as presently written, requires that the retraining and replacement training program shall be maintained under the direction of the Technical Training Manager. The Supply System proposes modification to reflect that these programs shall be maintained under the direction ofTraining Coordinators.

Additional modifications are requested'to the aforementioned Supply System organization charts to refiect more accurately the cwrent company organizational configurations.

Basis forproposed no significont hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed, amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a signiTicant'increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated: (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The licensee has determined that the requested amendment per 10 CFR 50.92 does not: (1) Involve a significant increase Ih the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, because the proposed changes continue to require that the training program must meet or exceed the requirements of section 5.5 of ANSI/

ANS N18.1-1971 and the additional supplemental requirements as stipulated in Specification 6.4.1; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident than previously evaluated, because the training program will continue to meet ANSI/ANS requirements, and therefore no new or different kinds of accidents are conceivable: or (3) Involve a eignificant reduction ln a margin of safety, because there are no safety margins threatened by the proposed change.

Based on our review ofthe proposed modifications, the staff agrees with the licensee's determination. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed changes to the WNP-2 Technical Specificatione involve no signiTicant hazards considerations.

Local Public Document Room locotion: Richland Public Library, Swift and Northgate Streets, Richland, Washington 99352.

Attorneyforlicensee: Nicholas Reynolds, Esquire, Bishop, Liberman, Cook. Purcell and Reynolds, 1200 Seventeenth Street, NW.. Washington, DC 20036.

NRC Project Director. Ehnor G.

Adensam.

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED NOTICES OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTSTO OPERATING LICENSES ANDPROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANTHAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION ANDOPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The followingnotices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content wae the same as above. They were published as individual notices because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this bi-weekly notice. They are repeated here because the bi-weekly notice lists all amendments 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.

Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Kansas City Power and Light Company, Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc Docket No. 50-482, WolfCreek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas Dole ofamendment request: May 31, 1985. as supplemented September 15, 1988.

Briefdescriplion ofamendment: The proposed amendment would modify the reactor trip system Instrumentation eetpoints contained in Technical Specification Table 2.2-1 to incorporate increased uncertainties related to resistance temperature detector errors identified during high temperature calibration.

Dale ofpublication ofindividual nolicein Federal Register. September 25, 1986 (51 FR 34169).

Expiration dote ofindividuolnotice:

October 27, 1986 Local Public Document Room Jocation: Emporia State University, WilliamAllen White Library. 1200 Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas and Washburn University School of Law Library. Topeka Kansas.

Mississippi Power 5 Light Company, Middle South Energy, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, Docket No. 50-416, Grand GulfNuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi Date ofamendmenl reouest: August 12, 1985 as emended September 25, 1985 and supplemented October 5 and October 22, 1985 and May 30. 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment request: The proposed amendment would make the followingchanges in the Technical Specification; add speciTications in Table 3.3.3-1.

"Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Actuation Instrumentation" and Table S.3.3-2, "Emergency Core Cooling System Actuation Instrumentation Setpoints" to incorporate interlock instrumentation which is designed to prevent inadvertent overpressurization of low design pressure emergency core

~ cooling systems by the reactor coolant systems, and make associated changes in Table 3.3.3-3, "ECCS Response Times" and Surveillance Requirement 4.5.1 regarding response times of ECCS injection systems, Table 4.3.3.1-1, "ECCS Actuation Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements" Surveillance Requirement 4.4.3.2.2, "Reactor Coolant System Operational Leakage," Table 3.4.3.2-2. "Reactor Coolant System Interface Valves Pressure Monitors Alarm." and Table 3.4.3.2-3 "Reactor Coolant System Interface Valves Pressure Interlocks."

These proposed chanqes were requested in Item 13 of the attachment to the licensee's letter dated August 12, 1985, as amended September 25, 1985 and supplemented October 5 and October 22.

1985 and May 30, 1986. The changes requested. in Item 12 of the August 12, 1985 letter weve previously noticed and issued as Amendment No. 7 to GGNS

Federal Register / VoL 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1988 / Notices 37523 Unit 1 License No. NPF-29 on November

8. 1985.

This notice supersedes a previous notice published in the Federal Register on August 28, 1985 (50 FR 34994). The previous notice was based on the licensee's initial application for amendment dated August 12, 1985.

During its safety review of proposed changes to Technical Specifications for the ECCS injection valve interlocks the staff noted the licensee's proposed deletion of tests of response times for starting the ECCS systems associated with the injection valves, because the system response with valve interlocks would vary, depending on the rate of depressurization during a loss of coolant accident. The presently specified system response time (40 seconds) includes 10 seconds for starting an emergency diesel generator and 30 seconds for opening the injection valve in the system. In response to staff questions, regarding surveillance tests of injection valve'pening, the licensee proposed by letter dated September 25. 1985 to include surveillance tests of the time for injection valves to move from the closed position to the open position (29 seconds). Surveillance tests of emergency diesel generator starting times (10 seconds) are presently included in'echnical Specification'.8.1.1.2.

This notice is based on the revised application from that initially noticed which results in greater assurance that the ECCS injection valves willopen within the design time.

Appropriate changes to the initialnotice regarding ECCS injection valve response time have been incorporated in this notice.

Dale ofpublicolion ofindividual nolicein Federal Register. September 4, 1980 (51 FR 31740).

Expiration dale ofindividualnotice:

October 0, 1980 Local Public Document Boom locolion: Hinds Junior College, McLendon Library, Raymond, Mississippi 39154.

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACILITy OPERATING LICENSE During the period since publication of the last bi-weekly 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 and Proposed No Significant Hazards Corisideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated. No request for a hearing or petition-for leave to intervene was filed followingthis notice.

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. Ifthe 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 amendments, (2) the amendments, and (3) the Commission's related letters, Safety Evaluations and/or Environmental Assessments as indicated. Allof these items are available for public inspection at tha Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW.. Washington, D.C.,

and at the local public document rooms for the particular facilities involved. A copy of items (2) and (3) may be.

obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:

Director. Division of Licensing.

Alabama Power Company, Docket No.

50-348, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1, Houston County, Alabama Date ofopplicotion foramendment:

July 8. 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment deletes the fuel rod weight limitin Technical Specification 5.3.1.

Date ofissuance: September 23, 1980.

Effective date: September 23, 1988.

Amendment No. 66.

Faci%'ty Operating License No. NPF-

2. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. August 13, 1980 (51 FR 28993)

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 23. 1980. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Boom location: George S. Houston Memorial Library, 212 W. Burdeshaw Street, Dothan. Alabama 36303.

Arizona Public Service Company, et aL Docket Nos. STN ~28 and STN 50-529, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2;Maricopa County.

Arizona Date ofApplicationforAmendmenlsi July 23, 1980, and supplemental letters dated August 20 and September 20, 1980.

BriefDescriplion ofAmendmenls:

The amendments revised the Technical Specifications by changing the setpoints involved with the Low Reactor Coolant Flow reactor trip function, to values which are still bounded by current safety analyses, so that process noise can be accommodated without tripping the reactor.

Date ofIssuance: October 7. 1980.

Effective Dote: October 7, 1980.

Amendment Nos, 10 and 5.

Facility Operating License Nos.:

NPF-4I ond NPF&tiAmendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofInitialNolicein Federal Register. September 2, 1980 (51 FR 31179),

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 7, 1988.

No significant hazards consideration comments were received: No.

Local Public Document Room, Locotioni Phoenix Public Library,,

Business, Science and Technology Department, 12 East McDowellRoad, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

Arkansas Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1, Pope County. Arkansas Date ofopplicolion for amendment:

April30, 1988. as supplemented July 31.

1988.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment provides changes to ANO-1 Technical Specifications 3.14 and 4.12 related to two new thermal hydrogen recombiners to replace the existing hydrogen purge system.

Date ofissuance: October 7, 1986..

Effective date: October 7, 1980, and shall be implemented no later than November 18. 1988.

Amendment No.: 102.

Faci%'ty Operating License No. DPR-

51. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. June 4, 1980 (51 FR 20307).

Since the initialnotice, the licensee submitted a supplement dated July 31, 1980, which responded to the Commission's request for additional information. This information'did not change the original application in any.

way. and therefore did not warrant reno tieing.

S7524 Federal Register / Vo). 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 198B / Notices The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 7. 1988.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

LocolPublic Document Room location: Tom!inson Library. Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas 72801.

Carolina Power 5 Light Company, Dockets Nos.60-325 and S0-324.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina Date ofapplication for amendment:

May 6, 1985 as supplemented February 19, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendments change the Technical Specifications (TS) by modifying the surveillance requirements in TS Table 4.3.1-1 for the Turbine Stop Valve-Closure and-Turbine Control Valve Fast C!osure, Control Oil Pressure-Low functions of the Reactor Protection System. The amendments eliminate the need to test these functions when thermal power is below 30% ofrated power.

Dote ofissuance: October 1. 1986.

Effective date: October 1, 1988.

Amendment No.: 100 and 129.

Focility Operating Licenses Nos.

DPR-71 and DPR-82, Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dole ofinitiolnolicein Federal Register. June 19, 1985 (50 FR 25484). The February 19, 1988 submittal provided additional clarifying information and therefore did not change the determination of the initialFederal Register Notice.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October1, 1986.

No signiiflicant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Southport, Brunswick County Library, 109 W. Moore Street. Southport.

North Carolina 28481.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, Westchester County, New York Date ofopplication foramendmenl:

May 9. 1988.,

Briefdescription ofomendment: The amendment revises the Technical Specifications to correct two typographical errors in Speciflcation 3.10.2, Power Distribution Limits which were issued in Amendment No. 110.

Dole ofissuance: October 6, 1988.

Effective date: Immediately.

Amendment No, 118.

Foci%'ties Operating License No.

DPR-28: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dale ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. July 16, 1988 (51 FR 2S768).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a letter dated October 6, 1986.

No significant hazards consideration commenls received: No Local Public Document Room locotioru White Plains Public Library, 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York, 10610.

100 Duke Power Company, Docket Nos,60-413 end 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina Date ofapplication foramendments:

September 10, 1985, as supplemented November 27, 1985, January 7 and July 31, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments lower the Low-Low Reactor Trip Signal for the steam generator level when the reactor is operating above 30% power level.

Dote ofissuance: September 30, 1986.

Effective dote: September 30, 1988.

Amendment Nos.: 13 and 5.

Facility Operaling License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Dole ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. August 27, 1988 (51 FR 30564).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: York County Library, 138 East Black Street, Rock Hill,South Carolina 29730.

Duke Power Company, et aL, Docket Nos.58-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,York County, South Carolina Dole ofapplication foramendments:

July 16, 1988, as supplemented july 24, 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendmenls: The amendments change the Technical Specifications related to application ofa positive moderator temperature coefficient and to reflect the Cycle 2 refueling for Unit 1.

Dale ofissuance: October 1, 1988.

Effective date: October 1, 1988.

Amendment Nos.: 14 and 8.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52 Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Dole ofinitialnolicein Federal Register. August 27. 1986 (51 FR 30567).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments fs contained fn a Safety Evaluation dated October 1. 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: York County Library. 138 East Black Street, Rock Hill,South Carolina 29730.

Duke Power Company, et al., Docket No. 50-413, Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1, York County, South Carolina Date ofapplication foromendment:

June 6, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment updates and changes a

license condition to allow extension of time for the resolution of the accumulator tank instrumentation issue.

Date ofissuance: October 8, 1986.

Effective dale: October 8, 1988.

Amendmenl No, 15.

Paci%'ty Operating License No. NPF-

35. Amendment revised the Operating License.

Date ofinitialnolicein Federal Register. August 13, 1986 (51 FR 28996)

~

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 6, 1986.

No signiTicant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: York County Library. 138 East Black Street. Rock Hill,South Carolina 29730.

Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-869 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Dotes ofapplications for amendments:

July 15, 1985, March 12, May 14, and July 14, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendmenls: The amendments change Technical Specification Table 3.6-2 related to containment isolation valves.

Date ofissuance: September 29. 1986.

Effective date: September

29. 1986.

Amendment Nos.: 63 and 44.

Facility Operoting License Nos. NPF-8 and NPF-17. Amendments revised the Technical SpeciTications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. August 27, 1986 (51 FR 30569 and 30571).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 1988.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

LocolPublic Document Room location: Atkins Library. University of North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC Station), North Carolina 28223.

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No, 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County. North Carolina Date ofopplication for amendments:

Auqust 19, 1985. as supplemented April 17, 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendmentst The amendments change the Technical Speciiflications (TS) to revise the limiting condition foz operation action statements to increase the tiine allowance for restoration of boron concentration in an accumulator that is out of specification. to eliminate verification of boron concentration after a greater than 1% volume increase from the normal makeup source. and to reflect these changes in the TS Bases.

Dale ofissuance: September 30. 1986.

Effective date: September 30, 1986.

Amendment ¹s.: 64 and 45.

Facility Operating License ¹s. NPF-9ond NPF-17. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnaticein FederaI Register. August 27. 1986 (51 FR 30569).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Atkins Library. University of North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC Station), North Carolina 28223.

Florida Power and Light Company, et aL, Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucio Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lude County, Horida Date ofapplication ofamendment July 22, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment deleted the refezezica to the maximum enrichment of reload fuel Ia Technical Specification MJ.,

Dote ofIssuance: September 30, 198L Effective DoteSeptember 30, 1980.

Amendment No, 15.

Facility Operating License No, NPF-16: Amendment revised the Teehnlcai Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotice m Federal Register: August 27. 1986 (51 FR 30581 at 30572).

The Commission's related evaluatiozt of the amendment is contained in e Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 1988.

No significant hazards sonsideratton comments received: Xa Loco/Public Document Room locatiom Indian River Junior Coll'ege Library. 3200 Virgins Avenue. Ft. Pierce,

'lorida.

GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit No. 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania Date ofapplicotion for amendment:

June 26, 1988, Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment deletes one smoke detector located in the AuxiliaryBuilding at elevation 281 feet in the cable gallery area (Fire Zone 4) ~ The minimum number of required operable smoke detectors (i.e., two) in this fire zone remains unchanged. Besides the detector being removed, there are currently three other detectors in'this fire zone..

Date ofissuonce: October 1, 1986.

Effective date: October 1, 1986.

Amendment Na. 121.

Facility Operating License Na DPR-

50. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications, Date ofinitialnoticeia Federal Register. July 30, 1988 (51 FR 27284).

The Commission's related evaluatloa of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 1. 1986.

No significant hazards consideratiaa comments received: No.

Local Public Document Roont location Government Publications Section, State LibraryofPennsylvania, Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126.

Iowa Electric Light and Power Company, Docket No. 50-331, Duaae Arnold Energy Center, Una County, lowe Datejfapplication for amendment.'ecember 6, 1985.

BriefDescription ofamendment: This amendment revises the DAECTcchnicaI Specifications to incorporate containment isolation valves for the loop B Jet Pump Sample line hr Technical Specification Tables 3.7-2 and 3.7-3.

Date afissuance: October 8; 1986.

Effective date: October 8, 1986.

Amendment Na 138.

Facility Operating License Na DPR-

49. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein FederaL Register. February 26, 1986 (51 FR 6825).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 8, 198L No significant hazards consideratiozr comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room locotion. Ceder Rapids Public Library, 500 First Street, S.E; Cedar Rapids, Iowa 5240K Mississippi Power Br Light Company, Middle South Energy, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Assodatfoa, Docket No. S0-418, Grand GulfNudear Station, Unit 1. Claibozae County, Mississippi Dote ofapplication foramendment August 12, 1985. as amended September 2S, 1985 and as supplemented October 5 and October 22, 198S and May 30, 1986,"

March 21, 1988, as supplemented May 30, 19M, and July 15, 19'rief description ofamendment Tfie amendment would change Teclmiuk Specifications to reflect iaodificatioas af instrumentation for the low pressure emergency coze cooling systems, the automatic depressurizatioa system each the seismic monitoring system.

Date ofissuanca October 6, 19'ffective date: Changes ta the Technical Specification pages are effective when the equipment modifications necessitating the changes are completed and the affected systems are made operable, but not later their startup following the firstrefueling outage.

Amendment Na. 2K FacilityOpezating License Na NPP-2R This amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotice in Fedesa?

Register. April 23. 1988 (51 FR 154':

August 27, 1988 (51 FR 30577)',

September 4, 1986 (51 FR 317407 The Commission's related evaiuatiois of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 6, 1$KL No significant haziirds coasideratioa comments received: No.

Local Public Document Roun location: Hinds Junior College.

McLendon Library, Raymond Mississippi 39154.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporatfozz, Docket No. 50-220, Nine MIIePoint Nudear Station, Unit No. 1, oswego County, New York Dots ofamendmezzt mguest. January 3, 19NL Briefd'escription ofamezidazent The amendment modifies Technicai Specification Table 3.6.14-1 and Notee.

for Table 3.6.14-1 to include the additiocs of an explanatory phrase to darify the intention of the phrase "at all times.

Datsofissuanca October 8, 19CL Effective date: October 6, 1986, Amendment No,'8.

FacilityOperating License Na DPR-tU. Amendment revised the Techno&

Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein FederaE.

Register. May 7, 1988 (Si FR 16930):

S7526 0

Federal Register / Vo). 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1988 / Notices The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 0, 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

LocolPublic Document Room locotion: State University College at Oswego, Penflield Library Documents, Oswego. New York 13120.

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-388.

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Dates ofapplication foramendment:

April30. June 19, July 25, September 10, and September 25, 1986.

Briefdescrip)ion ofomendment: This amendment revised the Susquehanna Unit 2 Technical Speciiflications to support the operation of this unit at full rated power during Cycle 2 operation.

This amendment revised the Technical Specifications in the followingareas: (1)

Established operating limits for Exxon and the remaining GE fuel, (2) established new Average Power Range Monitor (APRM) setpoints, (3) reflected the replacement ofapproximately 42 percent of the core with ENC 9x9 fuel, and (4) modiTied the bases section.

Dale ofissuance: October 3, 1980.

Effective dole: Upon startup following the Unit 2 first refueling outage.

Amendment No,'1.

Facility Operating License No. NPF-22: Amendment revised the Techncial SpeciTications.

Dote ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. August 13, 1980 (51 FR 29009).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 3, 1980.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Osterhout Free Library, Reference Department, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre.

Pennsylvania 18701.

Portland General Electric Company, et al Docket No. 50-344, Trojan Nuclear Plant, Columbia County, Oregon Dole ofapplication foramendment:

July.12. 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendment; The amendment rewords the Surveillance Requirements and Bases to reflect that the Trojan ultimate heat sink is the Columbia River with the Cooling Tower basin serving as the backup.

Date ofissuance: September

30. 198(t.

Effective dale: September 30, 1900.

Amendment No.: 120.

Facilities Operating License No. NPF-1: Amendment revised the Technical Speciiflications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. July 30, 1988 (51 FR 27280),

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 1980.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Multnomah County Library, 801 S. W. 10th Avenue, Portland, Oregon.

Power Authority ofThe State of New York, Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New York Dote ofapplication foramendment:

April30, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications to add anticipatory reactor trip upon turbine trip to a list of other reactor trips.

Date ofissuance: October 6, 1988.

Effective dote: October 8. 1980.

Amendment No.: 88.

Foci lities Operating License No.

DPR-M Amendment revised the Technical Speci fications.

Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal Register. July 10. 1986 (51 FR 25771).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 8, 1980.

No signiTicant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room locotion: White Plains Public Library.

100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York, 10610.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-320, Sequoyah NucIear Plant, IInlts 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Date ofapplicolion foramendments:

May 25, 1904. as supplemented July 11,

'1980.

Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments delete the requirement to perform the airlock door seal leakage test by the pressure decay method for 15 minutes and add a requirement that the seal leakage be determined by precision flowmethods for at least two minutes.

Date ofissuance: October 2, 1980.

Effective date. October 2, 1980.

Amendment Nos.: 40 and 40.

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-78. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. September 28, 1984 (49 FR 38410).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 2, 1988.

No significant hazards consideration comments received; No.

Local Public Document Room location: Chattanooga-Hamilton County Bicentennial Library, 1001 Broad Street.

Chattanooga. Tennessee 37401.

Virginia Electric and Power Company. et al., Docket No. M-338, North Anna Power Station, Unit No. 1, Louisa County, Virginia Date ofapplication foromendment:

July 11, 1980.

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment reinstates TS 3.4.9.1.C for NA-1 which was deleted by administrative error from the NA-1 TS in a previous amendment. TS 3.4.9.1.C specifies the necesstiry restrictions on temperature changes during inservice hydrostatic and leak testing surveillance.

Date ofissuance: September 26, 1980.

Effective date: September 26, 1980.

Amendment No,'0.

Facility Operating License No. NPF-4 Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dale ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. August 13, 1980 (51 FR 29015).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 26.

1988.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room locations: Board of Supervisors Office, Louisa County Courthouse. Louisa, Virginia 23093, and the Alderman Library, Manuscripts Department, University ofVirginia, Charlottesville.

Virginia 22901.

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE ANDFINAL DETERMINATIONOF NO SIGNIFICANTHAZARDS CONSIDERATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING (EXIGENTOR EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES)

During the period since publication of the last bi-weekly 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, whicii are set forth in the license amendment.

~

~

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1988 / Notices Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Comm'ission to publish, for public comment befare issuance, its usual 30-day Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendmeiit and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for 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 facilityof 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 lice'nsee has been informed of the public comments.

In circumstances where faiture to act in a timely w'ay would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown ofa nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increa'se 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 determination. In such case. the license amendment has been fssued without opportunity for comment. Ifthere has been some time forpublic comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. Ifcomments have been requested. it is so stated. In either event.

the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible.

Under its regulatians. the Commfssfoir 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 bash for this determination is contained ia the documents related to this action Accordingly. the amendmeats have been Issued and made effective as fndfcated.

Unless otherwise indicated. tbe Commission hae determinecL that these amendments satisfy the criteria far 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, Ifthe Commissian haa prepared an environmental assessment under the specfal 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. Allof these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NWWashington, DC, and at the local public document room for the particular facilityinvolved.

A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Washington, DC 20555. Attention:

Director. Division of Licensing.

The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendments. By November 21, 1986, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facilityoperating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate ait a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and petitions 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. Ifa request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filedby the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, willrule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board willissue a notice ofheanng or an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714. 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 reasans why intervention should be permf tted-withparticular reference to the followingfactors: (1) The nature ofthe petitioner's right under the Act tobe mad4i a party to the proceeding; (2)Tfie nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest fn the proceeding, and (3) The possible effect ofany order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to

'hich petitioner wishes to intervene; Any person who has filed a petitian for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled ia the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specifidty requirements described above.

Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least ona contention willnot 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 fullyin the conduct of the.

hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cro~xiimine witnesses.

Since the Commission haa made e final determination that the'amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. ifa hearing is requested, itwillnot stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any hearing held would.

take place while the amendment fa ia effect.

A request for a heahng or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, US.

Nuclear Regulatory Commiss~

Washington, DC 20555, Attentfonr Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street. NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date.

Where petitions are filed during the Iast tea (10) days of the notice period. it is req'uested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Commiseios by a toll-free te)ephone call to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (600) S42-6700}.

The Western Union operator 'should be gives Datagram Identification Number 3737and the followingmessage addressed to(Pteject Dire'ctorP

87528 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices petitioner'e name and telephone number. date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of&isFederal Register notice.

A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel Bethesda.V.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC 20555, and to the attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene. amended petitions, supplemental petitiorre and/or requests for hearing willnot be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714[a)(1)(i)-

(v) and 2.714(d).

Duke Power Company, Dockets Nos. 50-289, 50-270 and 60-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date ofapplication foramendments, June 30, 1986. as superseded September 2, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendments:

These amendments revise the Station's common Technical Specifications (TSs) to support the operation of Oconee Unit 2 at fullrated power during the upcoming Cycle 9. In the initialFederal Register notice published September 11, 1986 (51 FR 32383), it was stated that the proposed amendments would revise the TSs in four areas (core protection safety limits. protective system maximum allowable setpoints, rod position limits and power imbalance limits). These amendments revise only the power imbalance limits.

Dale ofissuance: October 8, 1988.

Effeclive date: October 8, 1986.

Amendments Nos.: 151, 151 and 148.

Facility Operating Licenses Nos.

DPR88, DPR-17 and DPR-85.

Amendments revised the Technical SpeciTications.

Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration: Yes. published in the Federal Register on September 11. 1988 (51 FR 32383).

Comments Received: No.

The Commission'8 related evaluation of the amendmente, finding of exigent circumstances. and final determination of no signiTicant hazards consideration are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 8. 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Attorneyforlicensee:

J. Michael McGarry. Iii.Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds. 120017th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Local Public Document Room location: Oconee County Library, 501 West.Southbroad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina 29691.

Gulf States Utilities Company, Docket No.60-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana Dote ofApplicationforamendment:

September 17, 1986 and supplemented by letter dated September 19, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendinent changed Technical Specifications Table 3.8.4-1 to permit Valve IE51'MOVF076 not to be required to be operable through October 4. 1986, thus not requiring Valve IE51'MOVF064 to be shut and permitting RCIC to be operable.

Date ofIssuance: October 9, 1986.

Effective Dote: September 19, 1988.

Amendment Na,?

Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration: No.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, consultation with the State ofLouisiana, and final'no significant hazards considerations determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 9, 1986.

Atlorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.

~ Conner and Wet terhahn, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20006.

Local Public Document Room Location: Government Documents Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803.

~

NRC Project Director. Walter R.

Butler.

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Docket No.60-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Date ofapplication foramendment:

September 12, 1986 [PLA-2719 and PLA-2720).

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment revises the Susquehanna Unit 2 Technical Speciflcation 3/4.9.11 to delete the applicability of the provisions ofTechnical Specification 3.0.4 for the purposes of entering Operational Condition 5 from a defueled condition during the first refueling outage.

Dale ofissuance: October 6, 1986.

Effective date: September 13, 1986.

Amendment No.: 29.

Facility Operating License No. NPF-22: Amendment revised the Technical SpeciTicatione.

Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration: No.

Comments received: No.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final no.

signiTicant hazards consideration determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 6, 1986.

Attorney for'licensee: Jay Silberg, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman. Potts and Trowbridge, 1800 M Street NW..

Washington, DC 20036.

Local Public Document Room location: Osterhout Free Library.

Reference Department, 71 South Franklin Street. Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18/01.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of October. 1986.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

George Lear, ActirgDirector, DivisionofPly Licensing-A, OfficeofiVucleorReactor tteguturion.

[FR Doc. 88-23/18 Filed 10-17-86: 8:45 am]

elLUlio CODE 7~iW

a