ML16342B248

Forwards bi-weekly Fr Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amends to OLs & Proposed NSHC Determination & Opportunity for Hearing

ML16342B248
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	11/21/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Crane P, Furbush M, Shollenberger NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V), PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
References
NUDOCS 8612010454
Download: ML16342B248 (22)

Text

DOCKET NO(S) 50>>275 and 50 323 See attached IList of Addressees NOVEIIBER 21, 1986 DISTR IBUTION I,

LDocket File 456(1 Local PDR PDg3 Rdg.

C. Vogan H. Schierling SUBJFCT:

DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POltER PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2.

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

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

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

to Application/SAR dated C3 Construction Permit No. CPPR-C3 Facility Operating License No.

, Amendment No.

, Amendment No.

dated

, dated CI Order Extending Construction Completion Date, dated Q Other (Specify) date for hearin and comments.

December 5

1986.

8612010454 861121 PDR

• DOCK 05000275 p

. PDR I~

Enclosures:

As stated 0%ice ol%'ucIearVeactor ttegulluoc cc:

See next page OFFICC~

SURNAMC~

DATC~

.P.DQ.....g..

vugg P.........

ll$

86 NRC FORM 318 (1/84) NRCM 0240

'N l

h k

1

'P C

'L '

1

'C

~,g t,

~ %

t S ~

P 4

r y1 a(

~ >

<L ~

r

. P

~

Mr. J.

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

Philip A. Crane, Jr.,

Esq.

Pacific Gas

& Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Vice President - General Counsel Pacific Gas

& Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Janice 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

& Willis 601 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, Cali fornia 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

& Co-Publisher South County Publishing Company P. 0.

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

Norton, Burke, Berry

& 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, Ok'lahoma 73101 Managing Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. 0.

Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406

r'

~\\

Pacific Gas 5 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 8 Electric Company 1726 M Street, N.W.

Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036-4502 Regional Administrator, Region V

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 Cali fornia Energy Commission 1516 9th Street, MS 18 Sacramento, Ca 1 ifornia 95814 Lewis Shollenberger, Esq.

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V

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 Pro,iect Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que 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 Coranission 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 State 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

/'

40274 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1988 / Notices NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

Applications and Amendments to Operating Ucenses involving No Slgnlfleant Hazards Considerations; Bl-

'thteokly Notice I. Background Pursuant to Public Law (Pub. L)97-,,

415, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is publishing'this regular bi-weekly noticeigub. L 97-415 revised section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 19M. as amended (the Act), to require the Commission to publish'otice 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

'uthority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an l operating license upon a determinationy the Commission that such

'mendment involves no significant hazards consideration; notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of I 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 22, 1988 (51 PR 37502) through October 27, 1988.

NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO

'ACII.ITYOPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATIONAND

, OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING I

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no signific'ant 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 of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated: or (3)

Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment'request fs shown below.

The Commission Is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments receive'd within 30 days after the date of.

publicatibn of this notice willb' 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 Administra tion. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice.

By December.5, 1988. 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 forleave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's "Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceeding's" ln 10 CFR Part 2. Ifa request for a hearing or petition for leave to.intervene fs filed by the above date, the Commission or irn 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 deslgnat'ed Atomic Safety and Licensing Board willIss'ue a notice ofhearing or an appropriate order.

I Federal Register /'ol. 51, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5,'1986 / Notir."e 40275 As required by 10 CFP 2.714, a petition for'leave to'interve'rie'shall s'et 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.shoald 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

'ature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible

'ffect 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 proceedin'g as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for leave to interverie 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.

'ot 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 interverte 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 ain'endment 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 hearing is requested.

the Commission willmake a final determination on the issue of no signiTicant 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 amendnient involves a significant hazards conside'ration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment, Normally, the Commission willnot issue the amendment until the expiration of the 3May notice period.

I.lowever, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act iri 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 Commissio'n expects that the need to take this action willoccur

'ery 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 Regula tory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attention:

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

Washington, DC, by the above date.

'here petitions. are filed during the last" ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the 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 ldentification Number 3737 and the followingmessage addressed to (Project Director):

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 General Counsel, Bethesda.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to the attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petition's, 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 of factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(e)(t )(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 Public Document. Room. 1717 H Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C and at the local public document room for the particular facilityinvolved.

Arizona Public Service Company et al, Docket Nos. STN 50-528 and 50-529, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), UnIts 1 and 2, Maricopa County, Arizona

, Date ofamendment requests: October 18, 1988 (three applications)

Description ofamendment requestsr The proposed amendments would allow additional sale and leaseback transactions by Arizona Public Service Company (APS). Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) and El Paso Electric Company (El Paso) relating to their ownership interests in Palo Verde. Specifically. the three applications request authorization by three of the cowwners to transfer all or a portion of their remaining fee interests to equity investors and the simultaneous transfer by the equity investors back to these co-owners of a long term (approximately 27%-29Yi years) possessory leasehold interest of these shares under the terms described in the applications and other identiTied documents. (For PNM, the sale and leaseback transactions relate to Palo Verde 1 and 2; for APS and El Paso, the sale and leaseback transactions relate to'Palo Verde 2.).

It is comtemplated that the equity investors may be third parties not affiliated with the co-owners. These equity investors might'include electric utilities. or affiliates or subsidiaries thereof, in which case antitrust considerations may be present. Under the proposed transactions, it is represented that the present co.owners willremain in possession of their present partial interests in the Palo Verde facilities under leaseholds rather than by virt'ue of ownership. APS would continue to be the sole licensed operator of the facilities.

The proposed amendments are similar to a request filed on October 18, 1985, by Arizona Public Service Company (APS) regarding the sale and leaseback transactions by Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) of a portion of PNM's ownership interests in PVNGS Unit 1. See 50 FR 45955. By Order of December 12, 1985. the Commissiori approved the proposed sale and leaseback transactions and authorized the amendment of the PVNGS Unit 1 license subject to certain conditions. Gn December 26, 1985. the PVNGS Unit 1 license was amended and conditioned pursuant to the Commission's Order.

See 51 FR 1883.

40276 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1988 / Notices The Commission also received.

. requests for additional similar transactions related to sale and leaseback of Palo Verde Units 1 and 2 ownership shares by PNM (see 51 FR 0259. 51 FR 8507. and 51 FR 9125) and requests for similar transactions related to sale and leaseback of Palo Verde Unl 2 ownership shares by El Paso Electric Company (see 51 FR 20300) and by Arizona Public Service Com'pany (s'ee 51 FR 20307). On June 2, August 12 and 15, 1900, the PVNGS Units 1 and 2 licenses were amended to allow the requested sale and leaseback transa'ctions.'These amendments permitted the trans'actions to be completed by PNM for Unit 1 by August 31, 1988 and by PNM, APS and El Paso for Unit 2 by September 30, 1980.

The current applications sta'te that.

although the owners have sold,and leased back portions of the ownership

~Interests authorizedgy the license amendments, additional amendments are requested to allow the sale and.

leaseback transactions of the remainder of their ownership interests. They.

anticipate these transactions willbe completed by June 30, 1907.

In addition, co-owner Public Service Company of New Mexico has"requested that Paragraph 2.B(8) of the Unit 1 license be revised to change the language concerning insurance to make it consistent with the language of the Unit 2 license. Specifically, in lieu of the

'tatement that the licensees notify the Commission of"any change In the existing Inswance", It should be changed to "any change in.

~. the existing property inswance coverage, for the Palo Verde Nuclear Facility. Unit 1 as specified in li'censees counsel's letter of November 20, 1985".

Basis forproposed no significant hazards considerotion delerminatioru The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exist's as staled in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityInvolves no significant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facility in accord'ance 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.

A discussion of these standards as they relate to the amendment requests follows:

Stan'dard I.;Involve a Significant.

Increase In the Probability or Consequerices ofan Accident Previously Evaluated No'change ls Involved In any aspect of plant design, criteria or operation of any of the plant units. The proposed amendments do not,. therefore, significantly Increase the probability or consequences of an accident.

'tandard 2Create the Possibility ofa Neivor Different KindofAccident From AnyAccident Previously Evaluated The proposed amendments do not affect any aspect ofplant design. criteria or operation and do not affect any condition or parameter. of any unit. For this reason, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed amendments do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of,

'accident from any accident prevjously evaluated, Standard JInvolve a Significant Beductionin a Margin ofSafety I

The requested amendments do not change any aspect of plant design, criteria or operation of any of the plant units. For this reason. the NRC staff has determined that the proposed changes do not Irivolve a significant reduction in

'ny margins of safety.

The proposed amendments would authorize additional time to complete sale and leaseback transactions of a kind,previously authorized by the Commission and clarify a condition concerning Unit 1 property insurance to reflect that which has been approved for Unit 2. Furthermore, the proposed amendments would maintain the co-owners in possession of their present interests In PVNGS as lessees iftid they would continue to be obligated to pay their share of all costs of construction.

maintenance. operation. capital improvements and decommissioning.

The equity investors do not have any rights of possession in, absent further license amendment, or control over PVNGS. Arizona Public Service Company would continue to be the sole licensee authorized to use and operate the facility.

Based on the above considerations, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Boom Location: Phoenix Public Library, Business, Science and Technology Department, 12 East McDowell Road, Phoenix. Arizona 85004.

Attorneyforlicensees: Mr. Arthur C..

Geh'r, Snell tti Wilmer,'3100 Valley Center. Phoenix, Arizona 85007.

'BC Project Director: George W.

Knighton.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket No. 50-373, La Salle County Station, Unit 1, La Salle County, Illinois Date ofamendment request: October 14, 1980.

I Description ofamendment request.'he, proposed amendment to Operating License No. NPF-11 would revise, the La Salle Unit 1 Technical Specifications for a one-time technical specificati'on relief during the La Salle Unit 2 first refueling outage to extend the present teeny period to thirty days during which only three diesel generators would be required to satisfy the standby AC on-site power requirements, for Unit 1,,This one time change willallow the installation of the diesel generator lube oil modification required by license condition to be installed on Unit 2 prior to'startup after the first refueling for the common diesel generator "2A".Because 2A Diesel Generator is shared between the two unite and existing Technical Specification 3.8.1.1 requires this diesel generator be operable whenever either unit is in operation, the licensee is unable to perform the modification without bringing both units to shutdown.

Basis forproposed no significant hazords 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 am'endment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequenses 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 Indicates in its application that the proposed Technical Specifications are Justifiable because:

1. The probability that a station blackout willoccur during the 30 days Is extremely unlikely.

2. The operating unit can be safely shutdown following a loss of offsite power transient even ifone of the remaining diesels fails.

In addition to the above, the licensee contends that the La Salle diesels have a higher than average reliability.The average emergency diesel generator has

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1986 / Notices 40277 a reliabilityof OA)8 and those at La Salle have.a reliability that exce'ed 0.99.

~

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

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because in the event of a loss of offsite.power with the "2A"diesel inoperable for this period sufficient onsite power with a single active failure willstill be available to shut down the operating unit safely.

2. Create the possibility of a new'or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated because emergency power'is still available to those systems required to mitigate-accidents evaluated in the FSAR, and, because the sole Eunction of this diesel is to provide a portion of such power, its

'unavailability willnot create any other new or different kind oE accident.

3. Involve a significant reduction in.

the margin of safety because the

":*'robabilityof a loss of offs'ite power in

" ', addition to a remaining diesel generator

'II"'failureduring the period of these diesel generator modifications is sufficiently

'. small to reasonably assure the health and safety of the public.

Accordingly. the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed

".i,'hanges to the Technical Specifications

," involve no significant hazards considerations.

- Loca/Public Document Room

,t location: 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 No. 50-374, La Salle County Station, Unit 2, La Salle County, Illinois Dote ofamendment request: October 18, 1988.

Description ofomendment request:

The proposed amendment to Operating License No. NPF-18 would revise the La Salle Unit 2 Technical Specifications to permit replacing an existing peripheral locking piston control rod drive module with a Fine Motion Control Rod Drive (FMCRD) module during one fuel cycle.

The purpose of the test is to demonstrate the capability, of an FMCRD module in a reactor environment. The proposed amendment incorporates three additional Special Test Exception's (%.10.8. %.10.9 and

%'.10.10) which are necessary to allow testing of the FMCRD at the control rod

~ location 02-'43. This peripheral location.

having a low reactivity worth, was specifically chosen in order to avoid any reactivity safety concerns.

Special Test Exception %,10.8 alhiws bypass of the FMCRD'fn the Rod Sequence Control System and programming out of the Rod Worth

'inimizer. %.10.9 provides for

~

determination of the Shutdown Margin with an increased allowance for.the withdrawn worth of the, FMCRD, and

%.10.10 provides for disarming the FMCRD motor electrically in case ofnot meeting the shutdown margin requirement.

In addition. the Operational Conditions applicable to the Technical Specification 3.1.1, 3.1.3.1 through 3,1.3.7, 3.1.4.1 and 3.1.4.2 are marked with footnotes to reflect incorporations of these exceptions. The Technical

'pecification 3.9.1 is modified to a'ssure that the core alterations for control rods other than the FMCRD can proceed only after the FI ICRD is fullyinserted and its motor electrically disarmed.

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)). 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 consequenses of an accident previously evaluated: (2) create'the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction ln 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 of an accident previously evaluated because:

(a) Interconnections between the new FMCRD and existing plant systems and equipment have been minimized and configured to include sufficient protection to assure that any potential electrical fault within the FMCRD and its supporting equipment willnot propagate back into the rest of the plant equipment'to which it is directly or indirectly connected: (b) replacement of

'he locking piston control rod drive (LPCRD) module at a peripheral core location with an FMCRD does not affect the fail-safe feature of the reactor protection system; (c) even when postulating independent or concomitant misoperation of the FMCRD, results of

'he analyzed transient or accident events (and control rod related parameters such as shutdown margin and scram reactivity worth) would bound the re'activity efEects.from the

. postulated mlsoperation: and (d) the inserted FMCRD (by administrative

'control) willnot be moved until reactor power is greater than 25 percent and a rod pattern has been established in order to free the FMCRD rod from the Rod Sequence Control Sequence (RSCS) logic and the Rod Worth Minimizer (RWM) progr'am as proposed by the Technical Specification Exception 3/

4.10.9 (RSCS and RWMrestrictions apply only during 0 to 20 percent reactor power level for establishing a rod pattern).

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

(a) The worst case (i.ebounding) accidents and the assumptions used in the analysis of these accidents remain unchanged; (b) the replaced FMCRD.

which utilizes hydraulic equipment similar to the replaced LPCRDs to scram and a small electric motor for shimming purposes, does not pose a concern ofa new accident since the FMCRD is located at a peripheral location which has minimal impact on reactor operation or accident analysis; and (c) inadvertent withdrawal of the FMCRD during refueling willbe prevented by disconnecting the power supply to the electric motor and special administrative controls willbe in place for refueling bridge movement or control, rod withdrawaL

3. Involve a reduction in the margin of safety because the low reactivity worth location of the FMCRD assures that: (a)

The FMCRD rod would not likelyreach prompt critical due to ared withdrawal error and the produced peak Euel enthalpy would be well within those of the generic analyses and the licensing criterion of 170 cal/gm; (b) in case ofen FMCRD rod drop accident postulated" conservatively in the lower power region, a low peak fuel enthalpy (less than 100 cal/gm) would result, well under the licensing criterion of 280 cal/

gm; (c) the associated minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) limitwould not be approached because of a rod withdrawal error; and (d) the requirement of the current Technical Specification for calculated shutdown margin (equal to or greater than 0.38 percent delta k/k) willbe met throughout the cycle based on the design shutdown margin of 1.0 percent delta k/

k assuming the FMCRD rod and the strongest worth rod are fullywithdrawn at the limitingpoint in the cycle.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed

40278 For)eral Register / Vol. 51, No. 214 / Vtfednesday, November 5, 1980 / Notices changes to tho Technical Specifications involve no s)gn)flcant hazards

considerations.

~ LocalPublic Document Room Iocoliom Public Library of illinois Valley Community College, Rural Route No. 1, Ogelsby. Illinois 61348.

Atlorneyforlicenseet Isham, Lincoln and Burke, Suite 840, 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington. DC 20036."

NllCPmj'ect Directors El)rior G.

Adensam.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket No. 50-265, Quad Cities Nuc)ear Power Station, Unit 2, Rock Island County, Illinois Dole ofamendment requesl:

September 18. 1986.

Descriplion ofamendment qequest:

This request includes Technical Speciflcation (TS) changes to reflect Cycle 9 reload fuel and transient

~

analyses. In addition, the licensee has requested the deletion of the provisions for Single Loop Operation (SLO) in the body of the facilityTS. More specifically, Commonwealth Edison proposes to amend Facility Operating License DRP-30 for Quad Cifles Unit 2 to support the Cycle 9 core re!oad. The proposed changes include: (1).

Incorporation of the Cycle 9 Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) limit determined by, the Cycle 9 transient analysis, (2) Addition ofMaximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR)limits for the reload fuel and extension of existing limits to 40,000 MWD/tfor fuel type BPBDRB282, and (3) Deletion of the existing License Condition addressing SLO and the incorporation of SLO in the body of the

'I'.

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

10 CFR S0.91 requires at the time a licensee requests an amendment, it must 3rovide to the Commission its analyses,

.sing standards in $ 50.92, about the issue of no significant hazards

onslderation. Therefore, in accordance

'i CFR 50.91 and 10 CFR 50.92, the

.censce has performed and provided the i'allowing analysis:

Commonwealth Edison has evaluated the

)roposed Technical Specification amendmcnt ind dcteimtned that it docs not represent a

ilgniAcsnt hazards consideration. Based on

.he criteria for deBning a stgniAcsnt hazards onetderatton estsbttIhed In 10 CFR SOS2(c),

pcratton of Qued Cities Unit 2 Cycle 9 tn accordance wtih the proposed amendments villnoh.

A. Involve a significant increase In the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because:

(ta2) The incorporation of the MCPR and MAPLHGRlimits noted above is explicitly provided to establish limits on normal reactor operation which ensure that the core is operated within the assumptions and initial conditions of previous accident analyses.

Operation within these limits willassure that the consequences of the affected accident, the Loss of Coolant Accident, remain with[in) the results of the previous analyses. These Ifmtts were generated using analytical methods previously approved by the NRC.

The probability of an accident Is not affected by this change because no phystcat systems or equipment which could initiate an accident are affected.

(3) The proposed SLO provisions are explicitly based on analyses performed by Generei Electric,using NRC approved methodk, to determine requlrcd sdjustmcnts In operating restrictions (MCPR, MAPLHGR) for SLO. Operation within the propbsed SLO IlmIts has been previously'analyzed to assure that the consequences of accidents are not increase*The probability of an accident is not increased because operation in single loop hss been previously approved for Quad Cities and has no causal relationship with the equipment or system failures necessary to initiate an accident.

B. Create the possibility ol a new or different.kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because:

(1Stz) The proposed MCPR and MAPLHGR limits represent limitations cn core power distribution which do not directly affect the opera6on or function of any system or component; As a result. there is no impact on or addition ofany systems or cqutpmeat whose failure could initiate an accident..

(3) SLO has been previously analyzed and approved for Quad Cities.

C. Involve a significant reducBon tn the margin of safety because ail of the proposed changes have been ana)1>ed to demonstrate that the consequences of transients or accidents sre not Increased beypad that previously evaluated and accepted et Quad Cities.

Based on the above discussion, Coaunonweslth Edison concludes that the proposed amendments do not represent a significant hazarda consideration.

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 siqnificant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location; Moline Public Library, 504 17th Street, Moline, Illinois61265.

Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. Robert G.

Fitzgibbons, Jr.. Isham, Lincoln, tk Beale, Three First National Plaza, Suite 5200, Chicago. Illinois60602.

NRCProject Director. John A.

Zwo)inskl, Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-285, Quad

'ities Nuc)ear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois Dale ofamendment request; October 22, 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment to the Quad Cities Uhlts 1 and 2Technlcal Specifications (TS) to modily the Low Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) pump flow test requirements from thc current three pump test demonstrating 14,500 gpm to a two pump test demonstrating 9,000 gpm. This change ls required to support facilitymodification to the Units 1 and 2 LPCI pump minimum flowvalve control logics to resolve a single failure concern identified in fnspectlon and Enforcement Bulletin (IEB) 86-01.

The existing LPCI loop selection logic is such that failure of either the "A"loop or "B"loop flow sensor would close both the "A".and "B"'minimum flow valves. In response to IEB 86-01, this logic is being modiTied so that the "A" valve is controlled only by the "A"'flow, sensor and the "B"valve by the "B" sensor. With this configuration. during LPCI injection th.ough the loop crosstie the minimum flowvalve on tho operating LPCI loop would remain open, thereby reducing the LPCI loop flow (consisting of two LPCI pumps) by the amount of recirculating flow through the minimura flow valve'.

The original design of the LPCI system required three pumps with a combined flowcapacity of 14,500 gpm. In 1974, 10 CFR 50A6/Appendix.K was implemented requiring re-analysis of the Design Basis Loss ol Coolant Accident (DBLOCA)to demonstrate compliance with the revised peak clad temperature (PCT) limit(2200 'F) and single failure criterion. This is the current Emergency Core Cooling System licensing basis. In the current Appendix K LOCA analysis, the most limitingevent is the hypothet!ca)

~ double-ended recircujation suction line break with an assumed failure of the LPCI injection valve. This scenario assumes no credit for the LPCI pumps; therefore. the proposed TS change in the LPCI flowhas no elfect on this event and the core cooling capability ls not reduced for the most limitingevent.

The second most limitingbreak and single lailure combination, which takes credit for LPCI cooling, is the DBA recircu)ation suction line break with a diesel generator failure. This scenario requires one low pressure core spray pump and two LPCI pumps for core cooling. Commonwealth Edison requested General Electric analyze this

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 198B / Notices 40279 event assuming the proposed 9,000 gpm flowrate for two LPCI pumps rather than the 9,687 gpm flowrate assu'med ln Ihe initialAppendix K analysis. The results of the analysis indicate that, with the, revised flow'rate, the PCT increases by 32'F to 1793'F. This temperature Iiwell below the Quad Cities limitingbreak PCT and the 2200'F limitset by 10 CFR 50.4L Basis forproposed no signi%'cant hazards considerati on determi natlant The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards determination exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c).

10 CFR 50.91 requires at the time a licensee requests an amendment, it must provide to the Commission its analyses, using the standards in $ 50.92. about the Issue ofno significant hazards consideration. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91'nd 10 CFR 50.92, the licensee,has performed the following analysis.

',Cominonwealth Edison has evaluated the p'roposed Technical Specification amendment and determined that it does not represent a signiflicant hazards consideration. Based on the criteria for defining a sfgnlflicant hazards consideration established in 10 CFR 50.92(c),

operation of Quad Cities in accordance with the proposed amendment willnot:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the proposed LPCI flowrate does not affect the inost liinltlngdesign basis LOCAand for the event that Is affected. the slightly increased peak cladding temperature,ls well below the limitingevent peak cladding temperature and the limitset by the NRC. The probability of a LOCA is unaffected since the proposed change affects an accident mitigating system and has no relationship to the failures or events necessary to Initiate an accident.

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the proposed change ln flowrate requirements does not affect any systems or equipment whose failure or malfunction during operation could lead to the initiation of a reactor transient or accident.

3. Involve a signiflcent reduction In the margin of safety since the analysis supporting this Technical Specification change showed that existing margins to safety are preserved because the existing design basis LOCA ls unchanged. The change in peak clad temperature for the affected non.limiting event Is Insignlflcant In comparison to the available margin.

Based on the previous discussion Commonwealth concludes that the proposed Technical Speciflcatlon changes do not represent a significant hazards consideration.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determinztion and ag're'es with the licensee's analysis. Therefore, the staff proposed to determine that the application for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local PublicDacumenl Room location: Moline Public Library, 504 17th Street, Moline. Illinois 61265.

Attorney forlicensee: Mr. Michael I.

Miller,Isham, Lincoln, 5 Beale, Three First National Plaza, Suite 5200, Chicago, Illinois 60602.

'RC Praj ect Director. John A, Zwoltnski, Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket No. 50-366, Edwin L Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2, dappling County, Georgia Dale ofamendment request: August 19, 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specifications (TS) to correct the dummy load profiles provided for testing the station batteries under simulated emergency battery loading conditions. The changes are proposed to reflect past design changes in the plant that have affected this emergency load profile.

Basis forproposed na significont hazards consideration determi nation:

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 of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a signiTicant reduction in a margin of safety. These changes do not result in any new modes of operation and therefore do not affect the probability of any previously evaluated accidents or create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

Correcting these test load profiles should ensure that consequences of previously evaluated accidents are not increased and that existing margins of safety are maintained.

On the basis of the above, the Commission has determined that the requested amendment meets the three criteria and therefore has made a proposed determination that the amendment application does not involve a signiTicant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley. Georgia.

Attorneyforlicensee: Bruce W.

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

Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Prajecl Director. Daniel R.

Muller.

Indiana and Michigan Electric Company, Docket No. 50-$ 15, Donald C, Cook NucIear Plant, Unit No; 1, Berrien County, Michigan Dote ofomendment request: October 1, 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would change the Technical Specifications to include a new Section 4.0.6 which by specific reference would allow certain tests normally designated as 18 month'urveillances to be delayed until the end of the next refueling outage currently scheduled to begin during the second quarter of 1987. These, teste include channel calibrations on steam generator level, and related post accident monitoring instrumentation, channel calibrations on pressurizer water level, channel calibrations of containmen(

sump level and flow instruments, PORV limitswitch calibrations, testing of residual heat removal/reactor coolant system interlocks, steam generator snubbers and Grinnel small bore snubber tests, battery service tests, divider barrier seal inspection, containment sump inspection. reactor

'oolant pump spray tests, diesel testing including relief valve and essential service water valve tests, auxiliary feedwater pumps and related engineered safety feature (ESF) testing, and time response testing forJeactor trip and ESF instrumentation. There is one proposed editorial change.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinati an:

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for making a no significant hazards determination by providing certain examples (51 FR 7744). One of these examples (i) is a purely administrative change to technical specifications. The licensee has proposed to correct a typographical error by clarifying that semiannually means every 6 months rather than every 5 months. The example is directly related to this change.

The Commission's standard for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists is as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility involves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility ln accordance with a proposed amendment would not (1) involve a

40200 Federal Registor / Vol. 51. No. 214 / Wednesday, November

5. 1986 / Notices r

accident and would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The containment sump liow and level J'nstrumentation is backed up with humidity monitors. and RCS water inventory balances performed every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. The flow and level monitors

calibration during the extension may have minor changes but the systems are not expected to completely fail. Even IE they do, adequate backup monitors are available. The extension of time for calibration would not significantly increase the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated or create the possibility of a new 'or different kind of accident than previously analyzed. Any change in calibration would not significantly reduce a margin ofsafety.

The N-Train batteries are scheduled for a capacity tes't at the next refueling.

Allother tests on'he battery to reveal any deterioration willstill be performed and based on pact performance, the N-

.Train batteries are expected to have adequate capacity even with the extension proposed by the licensee.

Likewise. the extension of time before testing the diesel generator's capability to energize. sequence.

and shed emergency loads is not expected to reduce the overall ability of the diesel generators since other tests will continue to prove starting and running capabiII ty. The test results of previous.

associated circuitry surveiiiances do not indicate;any.problems with wear or failures. The tests on the PORV and block valves'.emergency power supply

, and test on some essential service 'water valves that supply water to the diesels willbe also be delayed with the diesel tests. The previous test data on these systems do not indicate any reason why the extension willaffect them. As such.

the delay in these tests does not involve a significant increase in the probability'r consequences of an'accident, previously analysed nor willit create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed. The extension of time willnot involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The divider harrier seal limits ice condenser bypass leakage from the upper to lower volume in the event of an accident. The seal is a passive component and does not depend upon any other safety system to function. The test history indi'cates no problems with the seal and none that should occur during the extension. The containment sump inspection is to assure the sump is free of debris and its components are free of abnormal corrosion and distress.

'ignificant increase in the probability o consequences'of an'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 changes proposed by the licensee willextend certain tests to the next refueling outage rather than shutdown the plant, which would be required to safely do the tests. beginning

~

about midDccember. The safety significance. therefore, is in consideration ofextending some18 month tests until about 24 months and the confidence that the components or systems willstillperform their intended function with this extension of time. The licensee has evaluated each test and has provided the basis for maintaining confidence that the'components or systems willcontinue to function adequately. We have reviewed the licensee's submit tal and summarize below our agreement with the licensee's findings.

The steam generator level and pressurizer level instrumentation havo channel functional tests and channel checks periodically which demonstrate operability. Only the sensor is not checked in these tests, but comparison with other monitors and variables would reveal any significant changes in the sensor; The RHR/RCS interlocks are used to prevent opening fullsystem pressure to the RHR system. therefore, there is no expected wear or deterioration expected. that would make them inoperable. The extension willnot result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident nor willit create the possibility of a new or, different kind of an accident. Any loss of calibration during the extension is

.. expected to be small and willnot result

'n e significant reduction in the margin of safety.

The steam generator snubbers and Cinnell snubbers test extension is for the functional 'testing only; visual examination is not required until after the scheduled refueling. Visual examinations since1975 have found less than 1% failure and only one Cinnell snubber failed to lock up in compression. For the extension period, this small failure rate is acceptable although none are expected due solely to the approximately six months extension. Even with this small failure rate. systems should operate as before and without a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed. Failure of the snubber Itself should not create the l~osslbility of a new or different kind of Housekeeping inspection procedures are followed after each containment entry to assure no debris is left after the entry.

The extension of time is not expected to change the condition of the divider barrier seal or containment sump.

Therefore. the proposed change does not increase the probabilities or consequences of an accident previously analyzed nor does it create any new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed. The extension of time does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The licensee proposes to extend the calibration of the PORV limitswitches.

These limitswitches Indicate either open or close and,are not generally subJect to mechanical drift. Additional indication of a leaking PORV is provided by tall pipe temperatures and pressurizer relief tank temperatures and pressure. Previous test results In'dicate that the extension of time should have no effect on the calibration of the switches. This change does not Involve a significant increase in the probabilities or consequences of an accident previously analyzed nor does it create a new or different kind of accident. The extension of time does not involve a significant reduction in a safety margin.

The reactor coolant pumps spray test is to determine the capability.to extinguish a ftre at the'pump. The system has not failed a test since it was installed and an exlension of time before the next test should have no efEect in the system operation. The auxiliary feedwater pump test proposed for extension is a channel functional test on loss ofmain feedwater and a pump start and valve actuation test upon receipt oE appropriate signals. The auxiliary feedwater pumps have been called upon to operate since the last refueling but not'all the appropriate signals were tested. The results of previous tests do not indicate that the extension of time should be a factor in any new failure. For both these system tests, the extension does not Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any previously analyzed accident nor does lt create the possibility of a new or diEEerent,kind of accident. The extension does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The last proposed extension involves time response testing of reactor trip and ESF instrumentation. This instrumentation has not had a time response failure since initial star!up, 11 years ago. Other surveillance tests such as channel checks. channel functional tests, and channel calibrations will continue to be performed except for a

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 6, 1988 / Notices 40281 few,calibrations. This testing, and the test records since startup, supports the proposed change to extend the test period. This change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any previous accident analyzed nor does it create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The extension does not significantly reduce any margin of safety.

Base'd on the above considerations, the staff proposes to determine that the requested changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

'ocal Public Document Boom location: Maude Preston Palenske Memorial Library, 500 Market Street, St Joseph, Michigan 49085.

~

Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Charnoff, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge. 2300 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036.

NRC Project Director. B.J.

Youngblood.

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et aL, Docket No., 50-338, Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut

" Dale ofamendment request:

September.20, 1988.

Description ofomendment request: By application for license amendment dated September 28, 1988, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al. (the licensee), requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Millstone Unit 2. The proposed changes would renumber TS 3/4.99, "Decay Time", and incorporate the following new requirement in the TS: (1) Alimiting condition for operation (LCO) and associated surveillance requirement (SR) addresses the need for fuel, discharged from the reactor, to have a minimum decay time of 504 hours0.00583 days <br />0.14 hours <br />8.333333e-4 weeks <br />1.91772e-4 months <br /> prior to suspending operability of the spent fuel pool cooling system, and (2) an LCO and SR to require that the reactor remain shutdown in Modes 5 or 8 until discharged fuel has achieved a decay time of 504 hours0.00583 days <br />0.14 hours <br />8.333333e-4 weeks <br />1.91772e-4 months <br />.

Basis forpraposedno significant hazards consideration determination:

On January 15, 1988, the NRC issued Amendment No. 109 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-65 for Millstone Unit 2. The amendment revised the TS to allow an increase in the spent fuel storage capability from 887 to 1112 fuel assemblies. In the safety evaluation associated with Amendment No. 109, the NRC staff concluded that the existing TS should be supplemented by requirements to limitthe temperature in the spent fuel pool to 140 'F. In their letter dated November 27, 1985, the licensee had previously committed to submitting a proposed.TS change: The application dated September 28, 1988 satisfies the licensee's commitment, The proposed changes to the TS would require a combination of equipment to be operable, for spent fuel pool cooling, for 504 hours0.00583 days <br />0.14 hours <br />8.333333e-4 weeks <br />1.91772e-4 months <br />, which provides sufficient capacity to limitthe spent fuel pool temperature to 140 'F.

Following the 504 hour0.00583 days <br />0.14 hours <br />8.333333e-4 weeks <br />1.91772e-4 months <br /> period, the spent fuel pool t'ampere ture can be.'maintained below 140 'F with a reduced complement of cooling equipment, The temperature'limit of 140 'F is specifi'ed in Standard Review Plan 9.1.3, "Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System," and is partly based upon the need to protect the resins, used in the spent fuel pool cleanup system; from excessive temperatures.

On March 8, 1988, the NRC published guidance in the, Federal Register (51 FR 7751) concerning examples of amendments that are not likelyto involve a significant hazards consideration. One example provided in 51 FR 7751 ofamendments not likelyto involve significant hazards

'onsiderations is example (ii)which provides for"Achange that constitutes an additional limitation, restriction, or contro1 not presently includ'ed in the.

Technical Specifications: for example, a more stringent surveillance'equirement."

The pro'posed TS provide for requirements on spent fuel pool cooling system operability, and restrictions on reactor startup. which were not previously in the TS and thus represent additional restrictions consistent with example (ii)above. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the praposed changes to TS 3/4.9.3 involve no significant hazards considerations.

LocolPublic Document Room location: Waterford Public Library, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford,.

Connecticut 06385.

Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Garfield, Esq., Day, Berry and Howard, One Constitution Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut 08103.

NRC Project Director; Ashok C.

The dani.

Sacramento Municipal UtilityDistrict, Docket No. 50-312, Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, Sacramento County, California Dale ofamendment request: January 24, 1986. as supplemented September 19, 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) Table 2.3-1, "Reactor Protection System Trip Setting Limits,'".and Figure 2.3-1, "Protective Systems Maximuni'Afiowable Setpolnts, Pressure vs Temperature." The licensee

~

proposes to (1) increase the reactor coolant system (RCS) high pressure reactor trip setpoint from 2300 psig to 2355 psig, and (2) increase the anticipatory reactor trip on turbine trip arming threshold from 20 percent reactor power to 45 percent reactor power to reduce the number ofchallenges to plant safety systems and increase plant availability. The licensee also proposes to revise the related bases to refiect this proposed amendment.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination: In its January 24, 1986 letter,'the licensee stated that the proposed TS amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an

.accident. previously evaluated. The proposed increase of the RCS high pressure reactor trip from 2300 psig to 2355 psig and the percent reactor power at which the anticipatory re'actor trip system (ARTS) is disabled from 20 percent to 45 percent have been evaluated and. based on the NRC approved safety analyses contained in Babcock 5 Wilcoxreports BAW-1890, "Justification for Raising Setpoint for Reactor Trip on High Pressure," and BAW-1893, "Basis for Raising Arming Threshold for Anticipatory Reactor Trip on Turbine Trip," there are.'no'increases in the probabilities ofpreviously

~ evaluated accidents.

The licensee also stated that the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because 2355 psig is the design high pressure trip setpoint and, therefore, the original Final Safety

. Analysis Report analyses remain applicable. for this setpoint. In addition..

at a pressure trip setpoint of2355 psig, runbacks from 45 percent power can be achieved.

Finally, the licensee stated that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the increase in the reactor high pressure trip willhave negligible impact on the frequency of opening the power-operated-relief-valve (PORV) during anticipated overpressurization transients. The probability of an open PORV failing to close is sufficiently low to satisfy small break loss of coolant accident criteria for the PORV.

The Commission agrees with the licensee's evaluation of the application

40282 Federal Reglstor / Vol. 51, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1988 / Notices for amendment against the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92(c), and therefore proposes to determine that the amendment application does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room locotiom Sacramento CItyCounty Library, 828 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814, Attorney forlicensee: David S.

. Kaplan, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 8201 S Street, P.O. Box 15830, Sacramento, California 95813.

NRC Project Directors John F. Stolz.

Sacramento Municipal UtilityDistrict, Docket No. 50-312, Rancho Seco Nudear Generating.Station, Sacramento County, California Dotes ofamendment requestst January 29, 1988; February 14, 1988, March 20, 1988, and June 13. 19SB.

Description ofamendment requests:

The proposed license amendments would make numerous changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) and their bases to correct typographical errors and punctuation, change nomenclature, number previously unnumbered pages, define a previously undefined time period, update the table ofcontents, delete and add to correct inadvertent errors originating from various previously approved license

'mendments, and to achieve darity and consistency throughout the TSs.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration delerminatiom The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing certain examples of amendments that are considered not likely to involve signiTicant hazards considers tions (51

'R t/51). One of these examples is (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. The TS changes proposed by the licensee are aU encompassed by this example. The Commission proposes, therefore. to determine that the proposed amendments involve no signiTicant hazards considerations.

Local Public Document Room location: Sacramento City-County Library. 828 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

Attorney for 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 CaroUna Electro and Gas Company, South Camilna PubUc Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, VirgUC.

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Falrfield County, South CaroUna Dale ofamendment request:

September 16, 1986.

Description ofamendment request:

The amendment would change Technical Speclfication sur'veUlance requirement 3.6.1.8, "Containment Structural Integrity'."The change.revises the number and the representative sample ofcontainment tendons to be tested, deletes Technical Specification Tables 4.6-1a, 4.6-1b, and 4.6-'2 which list surveillance tendons and adjacent tendons base values and normalizing factors, and revises downward the mlnlmum required average tendon Eorce Eor each group (dome, vertical and hoop) oftendons.

Basis forproposed no sigaificant..'

hazards considetrttian delerminatiom The proposed Technical Specification revision identifies the a ppropriate surveUlance intervals and number of

, tendons to be examined for aU subsequent surveillances. Specific tendons have purposely not been included in tables in the proposed Technical Specification revision and willinstead be identified in station surveillance procedures. Additionally, acceptable base values and normalizing factors for each specific tendon willbe identified in the station procedures and not in the Technical SpeciTications. This format wiUeliminate the need for.

further Technical Specification changes in the event a tendon has to be substituted at inspection time due to an unforeseen interference which may have developed.

Calculations have been perfotiped which determined that the present Technical Specification limits for the minimum average tendon forces are very conservative.

11iose calculations support the new minimum average tendon forces. These forces are 2.9 percent less for vertical tendons, 4.7 percent less for doine teiidons, and 15.3 percent less for hoop tendons from the,

original Technical SpecificaUon values.

The new'minimum average tendon forces have been verified acceptable to ensure that the containment tendons willperform their design basis function under aU postulated loads and loading conditions.

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 facffity in accordance with the proposed amendment would not(1) Involve'a '

significant increase in the probabfflty or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated; (2) create the'possibility of a new or different kind of accident from accidents previously evaluated; or (3) involve a slgnificant reduction in margin of safety.'The staff hei determined that

'he requested amendment:

(1) Would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan acciderit previously evaluated because it does not change any of the hardware on the tendon'ystem, It specifies the testing program to be used in the future Eor containment tendons, and the ininimum average'endon force has been verified to enable the.containment'tendons to perform their'design basis funqtion under aU postulated loading conditions.

(2) Would not create the possibility of a new or different kind oE ac'ddent from any accident previously evaluated because itprovides for a continued testing program for.tendons that will ensure containment integrity; and (3) Would not involv'e a significant reduction in the margin of safety because the testing program wiU continue to provide assurance of the integrity of the containment post tensioning system and wiU provide Eor warning and appropriate actions if abnormal degradation should develop and the minimum average tendon force values have been verified to enable the containment to meet aU postulated loads and loading combinations as required to maintain safety.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that this change does not involve significant hazards considerations.

Local Public Document Room lbcationt Fairfield County Library, Garden and Washington Streets, WInnsboro, South Carolina 29180.

Attorneyforlicensee: Randolph R.

Mahan, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, P.O. Box 764. Columbia, South Carolina 29218.

NRCProject Director; Laster S.

Rubenstein.

'oledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Electric IUuminating Company, Docket No. 50-348, Davls-Bessa Nudaar Power Station. Unit No, 1, Ottawa County, Ohio Date ofamendment request: April22, 1985, as supplemented July 31, 1988.

Description ofamendment tequestt The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to delete the isolation (closure) times for certain High Pressure Injection (HPI)

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 214,/ Wednesday, November 5, 1966 / Notices 40283 system and Containment Spray (CS)...

system isolation valves. The proposed amendment'would also correct two typographical errors.

Basis forproposed no significont hazards considerolion determi notion:

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no signiTicant hazards consideration..Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that the 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; 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 proposed amendment involves the deletion of isolation times for certain HPI and CS system valves which.arc....

noimally closed and open automatically, upon a Safety Features Actuation Signal (SFAS) to'perform their safety function...

These valves are not provided with an automatic closure feature.

The proposed amendment would not:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an acbident previously evaluated. The deletion of the closing time requirement would not incIcase the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The safety function requires that the isolation valves open rather than close upon an actuation signal. The correction of typographical errors is an administrative change.

(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated. These changes, which delete the closing time for the isolation valves on the HPI and CS lines, would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident since the function of these valves is to open rather than close. The correction of the typographical errors is an administrative change.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The deletion of thc closing time for these valves would not reduce the margin of safety as their safety function is to open (valves are normally closed) upon SFAS signal and not to close. The correction of the typographical errors is an administrative change. Allmargins of safety assumed in previous analyses remain unchanged.

Therefore, the Commission proposes to determine that the application does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Documenl Room location: University of Toledo Library, Documents Department. 2801 Bancroft

~.

Avenue, Toledo; Ohio 43806...

Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald.

Charnoff, Esq,. Shaw, Pittman. Potts and Trowbridge; 2300 N Street. NW..

Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz.

PREVIOUSLYPUBLISHED NOTICES OF CONSIDERATIONOF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTSTO OPERATING LICENSES ANDPROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANTHAZARDS CONSIDERATIONDETERMINATION 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 ameridments proposed to be issued involvin'g'no 'significarit 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.

Florida Power 8r Light Company, et al.,

Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie giant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucia County, Florida Date ofamendment request: July 2, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendmentThe amendment would permit the licensee to transfer Unit No. 1 spent fuel from the Unit No:1 spent fuel pool to the Unit No.

2 spent fuel pool.

Date ofpublication ofindividuol noticein Federal Register: October 20.

1986 (5'1 FR 37242).

Expiration date ofindividualnotice:

November 19, 1988.

Local Public Document Room locotion: Indian River Junior Col!ege Library, 3209 Virginia Avenue. Fort Pierce, Florida 33450.

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 a ppropris te 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 Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with these'actions was published in the Federal Registc'r as'ndicated.

No request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene wa's filed following this notice.

Unless otlierwise indicated, the Commission has de'termined 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 wi'th 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. DC, 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, DC 20555. Attention:

Director, Division of Licensing.

Alabama Power Company, Dockets Nos.

50-348 and 50-384, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama Date ofapplication foromendments:

December 16, 1985, supplemented August 1, 1988.

Briefdes'criplion ofomendmenls: The amendment revises Technical Specifications LimitingConditions of Operation and Surveillance Requirements for the reactor trip breakers including the automatic 'hitnt trip feature modifications. These modifications resulted from the Commission staffs Generic Letter 85-28 for Item 4.3 dated July 8, 1983.

Dale ofissuance: October 24, 1986.

Effeclive dote: October 24, 1986.

Amendment Nos.: 67 and 59.

Facilities Operating License Nns.

NPF-2 ond NPF-8. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Dole ofinilialnolicein Federal Register. January 29, 1986 (51 FR 3709).

40284 Federal Roglster / Vol. 51. No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1980 / Notices The August 1,1986, submittal provided supplemental Information only 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 24. 1988.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room

'ocolioru George S. Houston Memorial Library, 212 W.'urdeshaw Street, Dothan, Alabama 36303.

~

Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-373 aad 50-374, La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2, La'Salle Couaty, Illinois Dale ofapplicalion foramendments:

June 27, 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments to Operating License No.

NPF-11 and Operating License No. NPF-18 revise the La Salle Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification to amend the reporting requirements for iodine'spiking and would eliminate the existing requirements to shut the plants down if coolant iodine activity limits are exceeded for 800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> In a 12 month, period. These changes are in accordance to Generic Letter 85-19, "Reporting Requirements on Primary Coolant Iodine Spikes", dated September 27. 1985.

Dote ofissuance: October 23. 1988.

Effective date: October 23. 1986.

Amendment Nos, 48 and 28.

Faci%ly Operating License Nos.'NPF-1I and NPF-187 Amindments revised the Technical SpeciTications.

Dote ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. August 13, 1986 (51 FR 28994).

The Commissiori's r'elated evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 23, 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Locol Public Documenl Room locoliom Public Library of IllinoisValley Community College, Rural Route No. 1, Oglesby, illinois 61348.

Consumors Power Company, Docket No.

50-255, Palisades Plant, Vaa Huron County, Michig'aa Dote ofapplication for amendment:

June 20. 1988.

Briefdescription ofomendmenl: This amendment increased the allowable quantity of CS-137 contained in sealed calibration sources used in support'of operation of the facility and added a Technical Specification requiring leakage testing of all sealed sources.

The amendment also corrected a typographical error.

Date ofissuance: October 15. 1986.

Effective dale: October 15, 1986.

Amendment No: 98.

.. Provisional Operating License No.

DPR-20: The amendment'revised the license and the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. July 30, 1988 (51 FR 27276 at 27282).

~

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment Is contained ln a Safety Evaluation dated October 15, 1988.

~ ~

No significant hazards. consideration comments received: No.

Loca'I Public Document Room localiotu Van Zoeren Library, Hope College. Holland. Michigan 49423.

Duke Power Company, et aL, Docket No. 50-413, Catawba Nuclear Station, Uait 1, York County, South Carolina Date o'fapplication foramendmenl:

August 8; 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment changes a license condition to Incorporate the recommendations and conclusions contained in tho NRC staff's Safety Evaluation Report on Operability/Reliability of Emergency Diesel Generators Manufactured by Transamerica Delaval, Inc.

Dale ofissuance: October 21. 19M.

Effective date: October 21. 1986.

Amendment No.t 18.

Faci%ty Operating License No. NPF-35t Amendment revised the Operating License.

Dale ofinitialnolicein Federal Register. August 27, 1986 (51 FR 30567) ~

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 21, 1988.

No significant hazards consideration commenta received: No.

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

Florida Power Corporation, ot al.,

Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida Date ofapplication foramendmenl:

December 10. 1985.

Briefdescription ofomendmenl: This amendment changes the Technical Specifications to increase the enrichment of fuel assemblies stored in Spent Fuel Pool B and the dry fuel storage rack from 3.5 weight percent to 4.0 weight percent uranium-235.

Dote ofissuance: October 14, 1988.

Effective date: October 14, 1988.

Amendment No, 92.

FacilityOperating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinilialnolicein Foderal Register, September'10; 1988 (51 FR 32287).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in e Safety Evaluation dated October 14, 19M.

No signlflcant hazards consid.ration co'mments received: No.

~ LocolPublic. Document Room localion: Crystal River'Public Library, 668 NW. First Avenue,'rystal River.

Florida 32629.

Florida Power Corporatioa, ot al.,

Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant. Citrus County, Florida Date ofapplicotion for amendment:

August 14, 1988, as supplemented October 0, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment extends the surveillance interval for high-pressure Injection and low-pressure injection pumps and valves from once per 18 months to once per fuel cycle for Cycle 8 only. Other changes proposed in the August 14, 1988-application are being handled separately.

Date ofissuance: October 21, 1988.

Effective date: October 21, 1986.

Amendment No, 93.

FacilityOperating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dale ofinilialnotice'in Federal Register: September 19, 1986 (51 FR 33322).

Since the initial notice, the licensee submitted a supplement dated October 8, 1988, which responded to the Commission's request for additional information. The information did not change the original application in any way, and therefore did not'warrant renoticing.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 21, 1988.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room locotiom Crystal River Public Library, 668 NW. First Avenue, Crystal River, Florida 32829.

Florida Power aad Light Company, ot al.,

Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2. St. Lucio County. Florida Dale ofapplicotion ofomendment:

July 15. 1988 as supplemented by two letters dated September 4, 1988 and one letter dated October 10. 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment changed the Reactor Coolant System Pressure/Temperature

Fedoral Register / Vol. 51, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1986 / Notices (P/T) limitfigures, to be effective up to

~

four effective fullpower'y'ears'of:

operation. The amendment'changed the

'echnical specifications dealing with'verpressu're protection syste'ms.

because they are linked with"the new P/'

limitfigures. The amendment also added.tha shutdown cooling systein relief valves as overpressure protection devices. The applicable ba'ses sections" are changed to refle'cf the above changes.

Dale ofissuance: October 16, 1986.

Effective dole: October 18, 1988.

Amendment No.: 16.

Facility Operating License Na. NPF-18: Amendment revised the.,Technical Specifications.

Dale ofinitialnalicein Federal Register. August 13, 1986 (51'=FR 28992 at 28999).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 18; 1988. Additiorialinformation wtis provided by the licensee'ubsequent.to the issuance of the no'tice in the Federal Register. The additional information did not alter the staffs proposed determination that a no significant hazards consideration is involved.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

.Local Public Document Room location: Indian River Junior College Library; 3209 Virgina Avenue. Ft; Pierce, Florida.

I Georgia Power Company,,Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electiic Authorityof Georgia, City.of Dalton, Georgia, Dockets Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units Nos. 1 and 2, Appliag County, Georgia Date ofapplication foramendments:

January 27, 1988, as supplemented July 10, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendments revised the TSs'for Hatch Units 1 and 2 to require additional sampling ofgaseous efIluents following shutdown. startup, or power level changes greater then 15% ofrated thermal power (1) to be required only if the primary coolant activity ofI-131 and the noble gas activity had increased by more than a factor of 3, and(2) tobe followed by analysis of only the principal gamma emit ters.

Dale ofissuance: October 23, 1986.

Effective date: October 23, 1986.

Amendments Nos.: 130 and 65.

Foci%'ly Operating License Nos. DPR-87 and NPF-,5: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. May 7, 1986 (51 FR 16927) and September 10, 1986 (51 FR 32269).

The Commission's related evaluation of the am'endment is contained in.a'.

Safety Evaluation dated Octobjr 23, 19M..

~

a.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley,.Georgia.

Georgia Power Company, Ogletborpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authorityof Georgia, Cityof Dalton, Georgia, Docket No. 50-SBB, Edwin I.

Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2,'Appiiag County, Georgia Date ofapplication for 'amendment:

July 11, 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendment; The amendment revises Table 3.8.2.6-1 "Primary Containment Penetration Conductor Overcurrent Protectiv'e Devices" to renect the installation of two'additional overcurrent'protective devices.

Date ofissuance: October 22,'1986.'ffecti ve dale: October 22, '1986.

Amendment Na.: 64.

Faci%'ty Operating License No. NPF-8t Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnalicein Federal Register. September 10, 1988 (51 FR 32288).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluatio'n dated October 22, 1986.

- No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia.

Kansas Gas aad Electric Company, Kaasas City Power Si Light Company, Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc Docket No. 50-482, WolfCreek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas Date ofapplication foramendment.

March 4, 1988. as supplemented July 29 and September 18, 1988. The supplement of September 18. 1988 did not substantively change original amendment request.

Briefdescription ofamendment; The amendment modifies the Technical SpecHications to reflect a title,change. a change in reporting relationship, cor'rection of typographical errors, additio'n and deletion ofgroups from the Unit Organization figure, addition of positions and group from the Nuclear Department organization and changes in membership to the Nuclear Safety Review Committee.

Date ofissuance: October 22, 1988.

Effective dale: October,22, 1986.

Amendment. Na.t 2.

Facility.Operating License Po.~ÃPF-42: Amendment reyised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Feheel,-

Register. July 30, 1986 (51 FR 27285) and.

August 13,.1986 (51 FR 29001).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained iira Safety Evaluation dated October 22,

'988.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Boom location: The WilliamAllen White Library, Emporia State Uriiverslty, Emporia', Kansas; arid Washbuin University School ofLaw, Topeka, Kansas.

Louisiana Power and Light Company,.et al., Docket No, 50;382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit S, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana Dates ofapplication foramendment:

August 1, 1985, as supplemented October 8, 1986:

BriefDescription ofAmendmenl: The.

amendment revises the Technical

~

Specifications by correcting three typographical errors in Table 38-1, changing Technical Specification 3/49.7 so that use of the spent fuel handling machine is not required for movement of new fuel outside the spent fuel pooL and revising Technical SpeciQcation 3/4.M "Steam Generator Pressure/

'emperature Umits".

Date ofIssuance: Octobe'r 18, 1988.

Effective Dale: October 18, 1986.

Amendment Na.: B.

Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

, Date'of InitialNolicesin Federal, Register. October 23, 1985 (50 FR 43028-43030).

The Commission's related evaluation is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 16, 1986. No significant hazards consideration comments were received.

Local Public Document Room Location: University of New Orleans Library, Louisiana Collection, New Orleans, Louisiana.70122" Louisiana Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No, 50-S82, Weterford Steam Electric Station, Unit S, St, Charles Perish, Louisiana

~

'ates ofapplication foramendment:

August 1, 1985, as supplemented October 8, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment revises the Technical Specifications by increasing the authorized fuel enrichment limit,

40206 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 214 / Wednesday, Noveinber 5, 1988 / Notices revising the uncertainties allowance for spent fuel storage racks, changing the surveillan'ce Interval for Control Element Assembly rod drop timing tests, correcting an error'n the characterization of uranium fuel rod loading, and revising the'definition of a

'hift Technical Advisor.

Dole ofissuance: October 10. 1980.

Effeclive date: October 18, 1986.

Amendment No.t 7.

Focililyoperating license No. NPF-38: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofInitialNoticesin Federal Register. August 27. 1986 (51 FR 30574 and 30575); September 10, 1986 (51 FR

'2273) and September 11 and 25, 1986 (51 FR 32381 and 34170).

The Commission's related evaluation is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated 'October 16. 1986. No significant hazards consideration comments were received..

Localpublic document room location:

Univer'sity.of New Orleans Library.

Louisiana Collection. New Orleans.

Louisiana 70122.

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

Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit1, Claibornc County, Mississippi Dote ofopplicolionforomendment:

January 29,1988 as amended April14.

July 16 and August 28, 1986; June 13, 1988. as amended August 28, 1986: and July 25,1986, as amended August 11.

1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment changes Technical Specifications (TSs) by: changing the nomenclature of certain drywell chilled water sys'em isolation valves and associated electrical protective devices:

,correcting an inconsistency in records

'retention TSs; changing the TSs for the drywall post-accident vacuum relief, system to rellect installation of valve position indicators; correcting an error in referencing a reporting requirement for radiological environmental monitoring; changing the TSs for the control rod scram discharge volume to reflect Installation of redundant level instrumentation, a redundant vent valve and a redundant drain valve; making permanent a temporary note that allows certain actuation signals of the high pressure core spray system to be inoperable for speciiflied reactor conditions: and, adding TSs for the automatic depressurization system accumulators to reflect installation of pressure Instrumentation. In addition.

this amendment changes Operating License Condition 2.C.(33)(b)'regarding the Implementation ofTMIAction Plan Item 1.G,1, "Special Low.Power Testing and Training" to make It consistent with present staff requirements.

Dole ofissuance: October 17, 1988.

Effe'cllve date: Changes In the.

Technical Specification on Pages 3/4 6-31, 3/4 6-39, 3/4 6-42, 3/4 6-44, 3/4 12-1 and 6-20 and'revised License Condition 2.C.(33)(b) are effective upon issuance of the amendment and the remainder of the changes in Technical Specifications are effective when the equipment necessitating the changes. on affected TS pages Is installed and operable but not later than startup following the first refueling outage.

Amendmenl No. 21.

'aci%'ty Operaling License No. NPF-2cf. This amendment revised the Technical Specifications and Licens.

Dale ofinilialnolicein Federal Register. August 13, 1986 (51 FR 29002) and September 10, 1988 (51 FR 32275;

'2270 and 32277).. '

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment ls contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 17,

'986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Hinds Junior College, McLendon Library, Raymond.

Mississippi 39154.

Mississippi Power 8c Light Company, Middle'South Energy, Inc., South Mississippi Elec'tric Power Association, Docket No. 50-410, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Clalborne County, Mississippi Dole ofapplication foramendment:

July 14,'1986 as amended August 15, September 4, and September 5, itnd supplemented October 3. 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendmentc, This amendment changes the Technical Specifications for operation with new Exxon fuel assemblies replacing spent General Electric fuel assemblies in the reactor. core.

Dote ofissuance: October 24, 1986.

Effective dale: October 24. 1988.

Amendmenl No. 23.

FacililyOperating License No. NPF-2R This amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. September 24, 1986 (51 FR 33955).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 24, 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Hinds Junior College.

McLendon Llb'rary. Rayinond, Mississippi 39154.

Northern States Power Company, Docket No, ~83, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota Dole ofopplicolionforamendment.

March 24 and July 22, 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendm'ent: The amendment revlses the Technical Specifications to permit operation of the plant with only one recirculation loop in operation.

Date ofissuoncetOctober 22, 1980.

Effective date: October 22, 1986.

Amendment No.t 47.

FacililyOperating License No. DPR-

22. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnolicein Federal Register: August 13.1988 (51 FR 29004).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 27 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

LocalPublic Document Room location: Minneapolis Public Library.

Technology and Scie'nce Department, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.

PaciTic Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and SM23, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.

1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California Dale ofopplication for amendments:

June 10, 1988. as supplemented. August 19, 1988..-

Briefdescription ofomendments:

These amendments revise the Technical Specification to (1) redefine the moderator temperature coefficient limits, (2) revise the F"-delta-H partial power multiplier, and (3) delete the design feature description of the total weight of uranium in a fuel rod. These changes willfacilitate the operation of Unit 1 Cycle 2. Change (1) and (3) apply equally to Units 1 and 2. Change (2) applies only to Unit 1. The August 19, 1988 letter did not change the Technical Specification and thus was not noticed.

Dale ofissuancru October 21, 1988.

Effeclive dale: October 21, 1986.

Amendmenl Nos, 10. 8.

Facility Operating Licenses Nos.

DPR-80 and DPR-CK Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofiniliolnoticein Federal Register. July 30, 1986 (51 FR 27286).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 21, 1988.

Federal Register / Vo).,51, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1988 '/ Notices 40287 No significan hazards consideration comments received: No Local Public Document Room location: Califgrnia Polytechnic Sta'te University Library, Documents arid

'aps Department, San Luis Obispo,-

Californla 93407.

" Power Authority of the State of New' York, Docket No.60-333, James'A.

FltzPatrick NucIear Power Plant, Oswego'County, New York Date ofapplicotion foramendment:

July 24, 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendmenL The amendment changes Technical Specifications 5.5.B concerning the criterIon for storage of nuclear fuel in the spent fuel pool.

Date ofissuance: October 24, 1986.

Effective date: October 24, 1986.

Amendment No,'01.

FacilityOperatic License No. DPR-

59. Amendment revised the Technical Speciflcations.

~

Date ofinitialnotice ln Federal Register: August 27, 1988 (51 FR 30580).

The Conunission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 24, 1988.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Penfield Library, State University College ofOswego, Oswego, New York Power AuthoritybfThe State ofNew York, Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New York Dote ofapplication foramendment:

June 4, 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendment. The amendment revises the Technical Specifications to include a provision for utilizinga temporary closure plate in place of the equipment door during refueling operations.

Date ofissuance: October 7, 1988.

Effective dote: October 7, 1986.

Amendment No.: 69.

Focilities Operating License No.

DPR-64: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote of initial noticein Federal Register: August 13, 1988 (51 FR 29011).

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

No signiflcant hazards consideration comments received:.No.

Local Public Document Room location: White Plains Public Library, 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains. New York, 10810.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Docket No.60-244, R.E Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York Date ofapplication foramendinenl.

July 19, 1985.

Briefdescription ofamendment. The amendment clarifies the requirement in the Technical Specifications related to the record retention period for the quality assurance activities, Dale ofissuance: October 22. 1988.

Effective date: October 22, 1988.

Amendment No.: 20.

FacilityOperating License No. DPR-18; Amendment revised the Technical Specifications, Date. ofinitialnoticein Federal Register: September 25, 1985 (50 FR 38922).

~.

~

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 22, 1986. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

LocalPublic Document Room location: Rochester Public Library, 115 South Avenue, Rochester, New York 14810.

NRC Pro/ ect Director: George E. Lear, Director,.

Washington Public Power Supply System, Docket No,60-397, WNPW Richland, WashIngton Date ofamendment request: March 20, 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment revised the WNP-2 Operating Licens, NPF-21, by modifying paragraph 2.E which governs the requirements for a Phy'sical Security Plan. Guard Training and Qualification and a Safeguards Contingency Plan.

Specifically, tha amendment deletes the coinmitment to use a redundant detection system to the plant protected area intrusion detection system.

'Dote ofissuance: October 16, 1988.

Effective date: October 18, 1988.

Amendment No: 29.

Facility Operating License No. NPF-2tt Amendment revised the license.

Date ofinitialnoticein the Federal Register: August 27,1986 (51 FR 30584)

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 16, 1986.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO'FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE ANDFINAL DETERMINATIONOF NO'IGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR'EARING (EXIGENTOR EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES).

'uring 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 of1954, as amended (the Act). and

'he Commission's rules and regulations.

The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

Because ofexigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, ther'e was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual 30-day Notice of Consideration of Issuance ofAmendment and Proposed No Significant Hazards Cons!de'ration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing. For exigent circumstances,.the Commission has either issued a Federal RegIster notice providing opportunity for public cominent or has used local media to provide notice to the public in the area surroundin'g a licensee's facilityof the licensee's application and of the Commission's proposed determination, ofno significant hazards consideration.

The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment. using its best efforts to make available to the public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the public comments.

In circumstances where failure to act in a'timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increas'e 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 issued without opportunity for comment. Ifthere has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may

40200 Federal Registor / Vol, 51, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1986 / Notices provide an opportunity for public comment. Ifcomments have been requested, itis so stated. In either event, the State has been'consulted by telephone whenever possible.

Under its regulations, the Commission

'ay issue and make an amendment "

Immediately effective, notwithstanding

'he 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 of10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the ainendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained fn the documents related to.this action..

Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as Indicated.

Unless otherwise indicated. the Commission has determined, that these amendments satisfy the criteria for

,'categorical exciusion 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

,'urther d'etails 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, Attention:

Director. Division of Licensing.

The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendments.

By December 5, 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 fora hearing'r petition'for leave to Intervene i's filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of tiie 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 speclfically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (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 speciifiicity 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.

Since the Commission has made a final determination that the amendment Involves no significant hazards consideration; ifa hearing is requested.

it willnot stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect. '

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, Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days ofthe notice period. it is requested that the petitioner promptly so Inform the Commission by a toll-fr'ee telephone call to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (In Missouri (800) 342-6700).

The Westein Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the fol!owing.me's sage addressed to (Project Director)t petitioner's name and telephone number, date petnon 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, U.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 petitions and/or requests for hearing willnot.be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding ofiicer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified fn 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-

(v) and 2.714(d).

Mississippi Power dc Light Company, Middle South Energy, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Associafion, Docket No. 50-416, Grand GulfNuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi Dale ofapplication foramendmenl:

October 3, 1986.

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment provides temporary changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for secondary containment isolation valves and associated actuation Instrumentation, secondary containment integrity, and the standby gas treatment system. The amendment is effective October 3, 1986 through October 10, 1988 while the plant is in the refueling mode.

The changes willallow certain secondary containment equipment to be inoperable during removal and re-

0

~

Federal Rogistcr / Vol. 51, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1988 / Notices Installation of control rods In defuelcd rore cells so that work on this equipmerit can continue while removal and reinstallation of control rods ls done. Two compensatory measures will be in effect when this temporary change to TSs Is used: (1) Administrative

'ontrols willbe implemented for temporarily closing portions of secondary containment that are open for ongoing work; arid (2) the height of control rods ovei irradiated fuel assemblies willbe minimized during control rod removal and re-installation, Dote ofissuance: October 22, 1988.

Effective date: October 3. 1988.

Amendment No.r 22:

Facility Operating License No. NPF-2R Amendment revised Technical SpeciTications Public comments..

requested as to proposed no significant haze'rds consideration: No; The Commission's related evaluation of the. amendment, consultation with the Sta'te ofMississippi, and final no significant hazards considerations determine'tion are contain'ed In a Safety Evaluation dated October 22, 198B.

Attorney forlicensee: Nicholas S.

Reynolds'. Esquire, Bishop. Liberman.

Cook. Purcell and Reynolds. 1200 17th Street, NW.. Washington, DC 2003B.

Local Public Document Room

'ocation:

Hinds Junior College, McLendon Library, Raymond.

Mississippi 39154.

NRCProject Director: Walter R.

Butler.

Dated at Bethcsde, Maryland this 29th day oE October, 1888.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Conunission.

Frank J. Miraglia, Director, DivisionofP WR Licensing-B, Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulalian.

(FR Doc. 86-24933 Filed 11-4-88; 8:45 aml SILLlrro coos Ts~rw 40289

'