ML17055E694

Advises That 861103 & s Re Fire Brigade Staffing Acceptable

ML17055E694
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	05/02/1989
From:	Slosson M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Burkhardt L NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
References
TAC-69212, NUDOCS 8905050246
Download: ML17055E694 (42)

Text

~P,S AEQUI>

C Vp,

~

Cy A.

I O

I 0

Cy 0

+**++

UNITED STATES t

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 May 2, 1989 Docket No. 50-220 Hr. Lawrence Bur khardt III Executive Vice President, Nuclear Operations Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 301 Plainfield Road

Syracuse, New York 13212

SUBJECT:

FIRE BRIGADE STAFFING (TAC NO. 69212)

By letter dated November 3, 1986, Niagara Mohawk informed the staff that it was revising its physical and agility requirements for fire brigade staffing at Nine Mile Point Unit 1.

Previously you had required that "all leaders and brigade members would be required to pass the physical and agility requirements of NFPA 1001."

Because Section III.H of Appendix R to 10 CFP, Part 50 only requires an annual physical examination to determine a person's ability to perform strenuous fire fighting activities, you have decided to revise your requirements.

Initially site fire brigade members will be required to meet physical and agility requirements of NFPA 1001.

Thereafter, brigade members will be subject to an annual examination and agility test with subsequent evaluation by a medical consultant to determine the individual's capability to perform as a brigade member.

The staff finds this acceptable.

By letter dated June 19, 1987, Niagara Mohawk informed the staff that it intends to revise the qualification requirements for the Fire Brigade Leader (Chief) and Fire Brigade members.

Previously, Fire Brigade members have been required to have three years of experience as a firefighter with an outside organization.

To allow greater latitude for hiring, you have decided to allow individuals to be assigned to the Fire Brigade with no prior outside fire fighting experience and to provide appropriate training and evaluations.

The staff finds this acceptable.

Your June 19 letter also indicated that you intend to relax the requirements for the Fire Brigade Leader to allow individua1s who, through normal job progression, have exhibited the necessary leadership qualities to advance to.

the position of Fire Chief.

Previously, the minimum experience for the Fire 85'05050246 85'0502 PDR ADOCK 05000220 PDC

Mr. Lawrence Bur khardt 2

May 2, 1989 Brigade Leader was three years as a fire-fighter, plus three years at a command level.

NRC fire protection criteria does not explicitly stipulate minimum qualifications for Brigade Leaders beyond those delineated for ordinary brigade members.

However, because the Brigade Leader would be expected to,have to make critical decisions during a fire emergency, including those that affect the safety of brigade members, it is prudent to have a leader who has had a

sufficient level of practical fire fighting experience.

The staff does not believe that someone displaying leadership abilities "related to plant operations alone would be able to exercise informed decision making under the unique conditions posed by a plant fire.

Consequently, the staff recommends that you not relax the experience requirements for Brigade Leader.

gp I

S incere ly, t

cc:

See next page Original signed by Marylee M. Slosson, Project Manager Project Directorate I-l Division of Reactor Projects I/II DISTRIBUTION "NRC PDR Local PDR PDI-I Rdg SVarga BBoger MSlosson VMcCree RBenedict CVogan RCapra OGC EJordan BGrimes DKubicki CMcCracken ACRS (10) t FIRE BRIGDE STAFFING TAC 69212]

NAME :CVogan DATE : ~/ i 89 W

W RCapra

~ g CAwwwweo ~

Q/8/89 W

W ~

// /89

/ 8/89

/

/89 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY W

W \\

~ ~

~

MSlosson/vr/bah:DKu icki :CMcCracken

~ v fvQ<<'I << lv i ~ t pl K <<h t<<l )

il )

f vga <<gvvl 1

"'l <<j'4 vi<<Q) v), [ tit V

'I g

fvvfvfvwlvjv) ttt<<>>

<<t ~,

ii tt t

I l~<<,

>f tj

<<>'j

'>>JJ:

<<I. "<<v>>T'AI'C.f'*It. j

(>>" ft(

', '!'l'>>""<<

ti """ !!",>>',*,

ji 'l;tj( gtl P, f>>C, j l

~;"'g.,v) I gI>>ttyg! <<>> )

Iv'

)I f g

~ )>>>>~II; r)>>)'g.,q)I

v v

il I 4 jpgv>>,

v<<

, ~

<<"tl <<

i tt I+

h <<v gatv (

v ~

w ~<<tt<< ~ jf

~ v

~ f <<, /plv l

<<V I

(VvV'f i ~

<<~g>>>>'v

~ '<<l II v>>

~ II il>>t V~f "tt tv

l~

$ /II<<vi

<<Zxv>>

I I

c.jl>>>>'<<

I,,gvv I

<< I>>

P

~ >>i

', <<I Il<<t"fl+ + II P>>

',"'<<<<IVVII" iv

~ v

'ti V

V V l ~

~.f it,

~

=*I' li ~ <<)

~

~

VI>>

r v

I ~

v I l N

. r v

~ g'v >'i l, ~ '

fv><<, '"<< ~

vr l

h vvvv 4

,v,<<<<~>> ~

~<<vtt ~

It

~ <<<<

<<If<<

<< 'I I

I

, " 'Mr.L. 8urkhardt III

'Aagara Mohawk Power Corporation h>ne NPofnt Nuc1ear Station, Unit No.

1 CC:

Mr. Troy 8. Conner, Jr., Esquire Conner 5 Wetterhahn Suite 1050

'.747 Pennsylvania

Avenue, N.

W.

Washington, D. C.

20006 Mr. Frank R. Church, Supervisor Town of Scriba R.

D. f2

Oswego, New York 13126 Hre James L. Willis General Supt.-Nuclear Generation Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Post Office Box 32

Lycoming, New York 13093 Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coamission Post Office Box 126

Lycoming, New York 13093 Mr. Gary 0. Wilson, Esquire Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West

Syracuse, New York 13202 Regional Administrator, Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coeaission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia.

Pennsylvania 19406 Ms.

Donna Ross New York State Energy Office 2 Empire State Plaza 16th Floor

Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Kim Dahlberg Unit 1 Station Superintendent Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Post Of<ice Box 32

Lycoming, New York 13093 Mr. Peter E. Francisco, Licensing Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 301 Plainfield Road

Syracuse, New York 13212 Charl ie Donaldson, Esouire Assistant Attorney General Hew York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 Mre Paul D. Eddy State of New York Department of Public Service Power Division, System Operations 3 Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223

1 l

Hay 2, 1989 DISTRIBUTION I Docket file w/encl.

PDI-1 Rdg CVogan MSlosson RCapra JScinto DOCKET NO(S).

50-220 Hr. Lawrence Burkhardt III Executive Vice President, Nuclear, Operations Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 301 Plainfield Road

Syracuse, New York 13212

SUBJECT:

NIACAaA MPaAgK POgm CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT 1 The following documents concerning our review of the subject facility are transmitted for your information.

Notice of Receipt of Application, dated Draft/Final Environmental Statement, dated Noti ce of Avai 1 abi 1 ity of Draft/Final Environmental Statement, dated Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No.

dated Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Si gnificant Impact, dated Q Notice of Cons iderati on of Issuance of Faci 1 ity Operating License or Amendment to Facility Operating

License, dated

~ Bi-Weekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses Involving No Sinai dC id i,d g~g gg]

Exemption, dated Constr uction Permit No.

CPPR-

, Amendment No.

dated Faci 1 ity Operating License No.

, Amendment No.

dated Order Extending Construction Completion 'ate, dated

+ monthly Operating Report for transmitted by letter dated Annual/Semi-Annual Report-l transmi tted by letter dated

Enclosures:

As stated Office of Nuclear Reactor Regul ation See next page OFFICE)

SURNAME) v DATE)

NRC FoRM 3IB lloIBolNRcM 0240 OFFICIAL RECOR 0 COPY I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~

~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

l'r I

Mr. L. Burkhardt III Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine M

Pofnt Nuclear Station, Unft Ho.

1 CC:

Mr. Troy 8. Conner, Jr., Esqufre Conner 5 Metterhahn Suite 1050

';747 Pennsylvania

Avenue, N. M.

Rashfngton, D. C.

20006 Mr. Frank R. Church, Supervisor Town nf Scriba R.

D. P2

Oswego, New York 13126 Mr, i1ames L. Mfllfs General Supt.-Nuclear Generation Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Post Office Box 32

Lycomfng, New York 13093 Pesfdent Inspector U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Coomissfon Post Office Box 126

Lycomfna, New York 13093 Mr. Gary D. Wilson, Esqufre Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard Rest

Syracuse, New York 13202 Regional Admfnfstrator, Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ceanission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia.

Pennsylvania 19406 Ms.

Donna Ross New York State Energy Office 2 Empire State Plaza 16th Floor

Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Kfm Dahlberg Unit 1 Station Superfntendent Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Post Office Rox 32

Lycomfng, New York 13093 Mr. Peter E. Francisco, Licensing Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 301 Plainfield Road

Syracuse, New York 13212 Charlfe Donaldson, Esaufre Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 Hr. paul D. Eddy State of New York Department of Public Servfce Power Dfvfsfon, System Operations 3 Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223

Faden6 Regbhe / VoL 54. Kc. N / Wednesday, Aprl) 19, 2ggg / Notices NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMiSSION Biweekly Notice AppHcettons and Amendments to Operating Ucensee involving No Significant Hazards Considerations L Background Pursuant to Public Law (P,L) 97<25, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is publishing this regular biweekly notice.P.L 97425 revised section 189 ofthe AtomicEnergy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), to require the Commission to pubfish notice of any amendments issued. or proposed to be issued, under a new provision of section 189 of the Act. This provision grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all notices ofamendments issued, or proposed to be issued from March 25, 1989 through April7, 2989. The last biweekly notice was published on April 5, 1989 (64 FR '13756].

NOTICE OF CONSIDERATIONOF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACILITYOPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIHCANT HA2JVU)S CONSIDERATION DEIXIMINATIONAND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEAIGNG The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regahthns In 20CFR 60.92, 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 ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request ls shown below.

The Commission is seeking pubfic comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice willbe considered in making any final determination. The Commission wiQnot normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.

Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulatory Publications Branch, Division ofFreedom of Information and Publications Services, Office ofAdministration and Resources Management, US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments mey also be delivered to Room P-216, Phillips Building. 7920 NorfolkAvenue.

Bethesda, Maryland from 7'i30 am. to 4:15 p.m. Copies ofwritten comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 LStreet, NW Washington, DC. The filingofrequests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene fs discussed below, ByMay 29, 1989 the Hcensee may file a request fora hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject faciHty operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must filea written petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and petlons for leave to intervene shall be filedin accordance with'the Commission's "Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. Ifa request for a hearing or petition for leave to imervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, willrule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board willissue a notice ofhearing or an appropriate order.

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, AprQ 19, 1989 / Notices Asrequired by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of

" the petitioner iiathe proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the followingfactors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding: (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial. or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect ofany order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.

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

Not later than Gfteen (15) days prior to the Brat 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 Gle 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 ofno significant 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 ofthe amendment.

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

Normally, the Commission willnot issue the amendment until the expiration of the SMay notice period.

However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example. in derating or shutdown of the facility. the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 3May notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination willconsider all public and State coniments received befor'e action is taken. Should the Comadssion take this action, it witt publish a notice of issuance and provide foropportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action willoccur very infrequently.

Arequest for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filedwith the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Commisston's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above date. Where petitions are Aled during the last ten (10) days ofthe notice period, itis requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 3254000 (in Missouri 1-(800) 3424700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the followingmessage addressed to (Pleat 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 ofthe General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to the attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings ofpetitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for heartng 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(a)(1)(t)-(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. the Gelman Building, 2120 LStreet. NW Washington, DC, and at the local public document room for the particular facilityinvolved.

Arkansas Power 8i Light Company, Docket No. 5M68, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO4), Pope Coanty, Arkansas Date ofamendment request:

December 12, 1988 Description ofamendment request:

This amendment would change the ANO-2Technical Spectficattons (TS) which describe th'e design features of the Spent Fuel Storage Pool. These changes willupdate the TS to conform with Amendment 43 (April15, 1983) which increased the spent fuel storage capacity for ANO-2. Tlds amendment also would make a number ofeditoriaL clarifyingand administrative corrections to the Technical Spectficattons, Remaining issues in the amendment request have been addressed in previous notices.

Basis forproposed na significant hazards consideration detertninatian:

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists by providing certain examples (51 FR 7751). One of the examples (i) ofactions not likelyto involve a significant hazards relates to a purely administrative change to technical specifications; for example, a change to achieve consistency throughout technical spectficattons, correction ofan error, or a change in nomenclature.

This amendment would correct an administrative error in omission ofspent fuel pool design feature information in the ANO-2Techdcal Spectficattons.

The new info~ation should have been included in the February 17, 1983 request forTS change to refiect expansion ofthe spent fuel pool capacity for the plant.

That requested change was approved in Amendment 43 which expanded storage from 485 spaces to 9M spaces. In addition the requested set ofeditorial changes are administrative in nature.

The current changes would correct these administrative oversights, and therefore appear to be similar to example (i).

Sinctt the application for amendment involves proposed changes that are similar to an example of an action that is considered not to involve siydficant hazards considerations, the Commission has iaade a proposed determinatio'n that

.0...

~

Federal Register / Voh 54, No.,"4 / 3'i'edneedey, April 19, 1989 / Notices the application for amendment involves no signifirant hazards considerations.

Local Pubiic Document Room location: Tomlinson Library. Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas 72801 rittorneyforlicensee: Nicholas S.

Reynolds. FsqBishop, Cook. Purcell &

Reyn'olds. 1400 I. Street, NW. ~

KVashington, DC %005-3502 h'RC eject Director; Jose A. Calvo Carolina Power tk Ught Company et al.,

Docket No. 5M25 and 504M, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units No. 1 and 2, Brunswick Cour ty. North Carolina Dote ofoppiication for an:endment:

September 4, 1987, as supplemented April5, 1988. super seded February 20, 1989. and supplemented March 20, 1989.

Description ofamendment request:

Based on the guidance provided in NRC Generic Letter 88-16. the proposed

~

change removes the values of cycle-specific parameter limits from the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP)

Technical Specifications (TS) and includes them in the Core Operating Limits Report (COIZ). However, the COIL willbe referenced in the TS, and willbe periodically submitted to the Commission.

In addition. and based on the guidance in the NRC Safety Evaluation

~

Report (SER) for Amendment 19 to General Electric Licensing Topical Report NEDE-24011-P-A, the proposed change eliminates BSEP Techidcal Specification 3/4.2.4, Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR), and the associated Total Peaking Factor (TPF) ~

The use ofTPF in the formulation of the Average Power Range Monitor (APRM) flow.biased scram and rod block setpoint setdown requirements of Specification 3/4.2.2 is being revised, along with associated defln!tions that are added, deleted, or revised. The associated revision ofTechnical Specification 3/4.2.1 specifies that only the most limiting!attice Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (APLHGR) limitfor multiple lattice fuel types will be specified.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinotiom The Commission has provided

'tandards for determining whether a no significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different ldnd of accident from any accident previously evaluated: or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The Carolina Power 8 light Company (COL) has reviewed thc proposed changes to TS ard has determined that the requested amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration as followiu Removal of Cycle-Specific Pararaeiar Umiliu

1. The proposed amendment does nal invoice a significant increase In probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The abnormal operational transients analyzed in the BSEP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report willremain bounded. There willbe no change In the operation ofthe facilityas a result of the.

amendment. Nu safety.nlaled equipment or function willbe altered. The proposed amendment merely removes cycle. specific parameter limits Rom the Tachnicai-Speciflcations and refennces their inclusion in the CORE OPERATING LIMITSREPORT.

NRC approved analytical methodology will continue to be used as the basis for the results that willnow be reported in the CORE OPERATING I.IMITSREPORT.

2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a rew or different kind olaccident from any accident previously evaluated. As stated above, no safety-related equipment. safety function, ar plant operations willbe altered as a result of this amendment, The requested change does not create any new accident mode. The proposed amendment is in accordance with the guidance provided In Generic Letter 88-18 lor licensees requesting removal of the values of cyc!e-spectflc parameters from Technical

'peciflcationL The establishment of these limits in accordance with an NRC.approved methodology and the incorporation of these limits Into the CORE OPERATING UMITS REPORT willensure that proper steps have been taken to establish the values of these limits. Furthermore, the submittal'of the CORE OPERATING UMITS REPORT to the Commission willallow the Staff to continue to trend lha values of these limits without the need for prior Staff approval of these limits and without introduction of an unreviawed safety question.

3. The proposed amendment does not alter the requirement that the plant be operated within the limits forcycle.speciflc parameters nor the required remedial actions that must be taken Ifthese limits ara not met. While it is ncoydzed that such limits are essential to plant safety, the values of such limits can be determined in accordance with NRC-approved methods without affecting nuclear safety. The removal of the values of these limits from the BSEP Technical Specifications Is coincident with their incorporation into lha CORE OPERATING UMITSREPORT that is submitted to the Coinmission. Hence, appropriate measures exist to control the values of these limits.Therefore, the proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not impact the operation of the facilityin a manner that involves a reduction in the margin ofsalely. Indeed. as stated in Generic Letter 88-18. the proposed amendment is nsponsive to industry and NRC efforts on improvements In Technical Specifi.alioas. and wiiiresult ln a resource savings for the licensee and the NRC by elfmtnating the majority of license amendment requests for changes in values of cycle.specific parameters in Technfcal

~

Specifications. Indirectly. this is a safety Improven.ent because the released resources may now be utilized on more consequential tasks.

Deletion of UIGR:

1. The proposed amendment does not Involve a sigidficant increase in the consequences cf any accident previously evaluated. The NRC Safety Evaluation Report for Amendment 19 to GESTAR-II concluded that a change simiiar lo the proposed change

"...will.In practice, result in the same operating power distribution limits and safety margins as the current Technical Specifications." The essential redundancy of

'he Uncar Heat Generation Rate and the Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate, and the equivalence of the formulation of the APRM flow-biased saipoinl setdown requirement. has been established and Is documented in the NRC Safety Evaluation Report for Amendment 19 ol GESTAR-H.

Since the same operating power distribution liudls as curnnl Technical Speciflcattons wiII,in practice, be required, the proposed change does nal Involve a signiflcant increase in the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change eliminates a thermal performance limit,modifles several definitions and provides an equivalent basis for adjusting APRM flow.biased setpotnt setdown based on power distribution parameters. As such the change only affects power distribution parameters which do not influence the probability of any accident.

Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the probability of any accident previously evaluated.

2. The proposed change does nol alter the function ofany cumponent or system and.

therefore. does not create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated.

3. The margin of safety, as established by current Tachidcai Spaciflcation power distribution limits, are [SIC) based on the assumptions and analyses documented in the BSEP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.

The proposed amendment will,in practice, result in the same power distribution liiidts as contained in current Technical Specificatlomci therefore, the pnposed change does nal involve a signiflcanl reduction in the margin of safety.

The staff has reviewed the CPtkL determinations and is in basic agreement with them. Cycle-specific parameter limitswillbe referenced in the TS, but willbe located in a licensee controlled document instead of located in the TS. The linear heat generation rate limitis essentially redundant to the average planar linear heat generation

~

Federal Reghter / VoL 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1989 / Notices rate hnit and the latter limitwillbe retained.

Local Public Document Room location: University ofNorth Carolina at Wilmington, Williamhiadison Randai)

Librar. 601 S. College Road, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297.

Attorneyfor licensee: R. E. Jones.

General Counsel, Carolina Power &

l.ight Company. P. O. Box 1551, Raleigh.

North Carolina 27802, NRCProject Director: Elinor G.

Adensam Caroline Power 3r Light Company, Docket No. SMOO, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Date ofamendment request." February 22, 1989 Description ofamendment requestr The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification (TS) 3/4,1,13, "Moderator Temperature Coefficient,"

to allow a more negative moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) in the LimitingCondition for Operation. TS 3.1.1.3b, and in the associated Surveillance Requirement. TS 4.1.1.3b.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinationr The Commission has provided standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c) for determining whether a slgnlficant hazards consideration exists. A proposed amendment to an Operating License for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability of 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.

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided the followingno significant hazards consideration determination:

1. The proposed amendment does not involve a slgniflcant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously arnlyzed. Accident analyses do not explicitlyinput an MTC, but rather a constant moderator density coefflctent (MDC). Converting the MDC used in the accident analyses to an MTC is a straight forward calculation wirlch accounts for the rata of change of moderator density with temperature at the conditions of interest; namely, Hot Full Power (HFP). For those non-LOCA transients where analysis results are made more severe by assumiug maxiruuru moderator feedback a corurtaut?vlDC of 0.43 delta K/gm/cc has been assumed to exist throughout the transient. Converting tbta to a'imiting MTCat HFP conditions gives about-Ipcm/'. The proposed Technical Spactflcatton LCO hfEC vatue of49 peru/'

conservatively assures that under other allowed operating corrditkrns (such aa rods at insertion limits, off-nrmtnal temperature and pressure and xenon and axial offset variations) that the actual MTCwttl not exceed the analysis value. Hence. there Is rro effect on any design basis accident and no Increases in the consequences of any derrlgn basis accident assoctated with this Technical Spedflcatton change.

For LOCA analyses flarge arid small break). the only sigutflcance of a change in MTC would be to the extent that it may affect generated decay heat. The reaciiviiy assumptions in the large break and small break LOCAaccirlent analyses assume a maximum decay heat generation according to the requirements ofAppendix K Consequently. any changes to the MTC wouid show no effect for the large and small break LOCAanalyser.

As stated above, the safety analysis assumption remains conservative with respect to the proposed LCO limitvalue of<9 pcm/'. Therefore. the proposed change in the LCO limitfrom <2 pcm/'

to <9 pcm/'

still assures that the accident analyses ruodarator temperature coefflctent is not exceedecL The proposed changes do not impact the consequences of any design basis accident. Also, there are no failure modes associated with the pmposed changes:

'herefore, there ta no hcrease in the pmbability or consequences of any acddant previously evaluate.rL

2. 1?re proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. There is no change in the plant design or in operating pmcedures.

Additionally, there are no new fatiure modes Intmduced by the pmposed changes; therefore, there can be no impact oa plant response to the poht where a different accident is created.

3. The proposed amendment does uot involve a signiflcant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed changes have no impact on the cousequences of an acddeut or on airy of the protective boundaries. The bases to the MTCTe'chnicai Spectllcatton 3/4.1.13 states

'The limitations on moderator temperature coefficient (MTC)ara pmvided to ensure that the value of this coeffldent remains within the iimitiugcondition assumed iu the FSAR accident and transient analyses." The proposed changes continua to satisfy this statement. The dafhltion of the most limiting condition assumed in the safety analyses Is changirrg from an extremely conservative and unrealistic assumption ofHot Full Power (HFP), all rods in (ARl). to a Moat Negative Feasible MTCapproach. The Most Negative Feasible MTC still provides a conservative estimate of the worst MTC. aud the revised limits still provide assurance that the values used in the safety analyses remain bounding compared to those which may be experienced under real acctderit conditions. Based on the above discussion, there is no siguiflcant reduction in the margin ofsafety.

Based on the above, the licensee has concluded that the proposed amendment meets the three standards in 10 CFR 50.92 and, therefore, involves no significant hazards consideration.

The NRC staff has made a preliminary review of the licensee's no slgnificant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the requested amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local PubBc Document Room location: Cameron Village Regional Library 1930 Clark Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27605.

Attorneyforlicensee: R. E Jones, General Counsel, Carolina Power gr Light Company, P. O. Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 NBCProject Directorr Elinor G.

Adensam Carolina Power 8r Light Company, Docket No. 50400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolhn Date ofamendment request: February 22, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise Surveillance Requirement 48.8.2 to delete the residual heat removal (RHR) flowrequirement whenever the water level is below the reactor vessel flange.

Currently; Surveillance Requirement 4.9JL2 requires that at least one RHR loop be verified in operation and circulating reactor coolant at a flowrate ofgreater than or equal to 2500 gpm at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> when the reactor is in Mode 6 with irradiated fuel in the vessel and the water level above the top, of the reactor vessel flange is less than 23 feet. The 2500 gpm flowrequirement would be maintained when the water level is at or above the reactor vessel flange. The associated Bases section would also be revised to reflect this change.

Basis forproposed no significant hozards consideration determlnatiom The Commission has provided standards in 10 CFR 5L92(c) for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists. A proposed amendment to an Operating License for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability of consequences of an accident previously evaluatedor (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.

As required by10CFRSL91(a), the

'icensee has provided the followingno

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1989 / Notices slgnificant hazards consideration determination:

1. The proposed amendment does not

~

Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences o! an accident previously evaluated.

The existing requirement of Specification 3/4,9.8,2 that at least one RHR loop be in operation ensures that: (1) sufficient cooling capacity is available to remove decay heat and maintain the water ln the reactor vessel below140'P as required in Mode 8, and (2) sufficient coolant drculation Is maintained through the core to minimize the effect ofa boron dilution incident and prevent boron stratification. The Mode 8 minlinum flow limitof 2500 gpm was established to alleviate the potential for boron straUficatlon under refueling conditions. However, achieving 2500 gpm fiow rate at the reduced water levels of mid.loop operation could cause cavitation end eventual damage of the RHR pumps.

Boron stratificaUon is only a concern with the large volumes ofwater present when the refueling cavity is filled. Sufficient mixing exists, even at low RHR flowrates, to preclude boron stratification when the water level Is below the reactor vessel flange.

Administrative controls to isolate potential sources ofnon-borated water from the reactor, established in Technical SpeciTicaiion 3/4.9.1, prevent a boron dilution event while in Mode B. Since boron stratificaUon Is not a concern at reduced RCS water inventories and the possibility for a boron dilution event Is precluded by Technical Spediication 3/4.9.1, the proposed revision to eliminate the minimum flowlimit when the RCS water level is below the reactor vessel Qange does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2.'Itic proposed amendment does not create the possibfllty of a new or different kind of accident from any accident prev!ously evaluated. The proposed emendment splits the exisUng surveillance requirement into two separate surveillances. The first.

Surveillance Requirement 4.9.IL2.1. Is applicable when the RCS water level Is at or above the reactor vessel flange and maintains the 2500 gpm minimum flowUmit.

The second, Surveillance Requirement 4.9.8.2.2, Is applicable.when the RCS water level is below the reactor vessel flange and requires that one RHR loop be verified in operation and drculaUng reactor coolant at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. This new surveillance requirement Is identical to the existing Mode 5 Surveillance Requirement 4.4.1 4.2, the only difference being the plant mode. That Is, prior to de-tensioning the reactor vessel head closure bolts with water

.temperature less than 140' the plant Is in Mode 5. Upon detensioning of the bolts. the plant is in Mode B. There is no change in reactor vessel water level, however. at this point the existing Surveillance Requirement 4.9.8.2 establishes a minimum flowrate of 2500 gpm. This minimuin flow requirement Is not necessary when the water level is below the reactor vessel flange as demonstrated In the Bases for Specification 3/4.4.1. Reactor Coolant Loops and Coolant Circulation, which states that, in Mode 5, ". ~. the operation ofone reactor coolant pump or one RHR pump provides adequate flowto ensure mhing and prevent stratiflcatlon." No Mode 6 minimum flowrate Is established In Spedfication 3/4.4.1, Therefore. as long as the RCS water level is below the reactor vessel flang a minimum Qow requirement is not necessary either In Mode 6 or Mode IL

'Up'on raising the water level above the reactor vessel flange, the proposed Surveillance Requirement 4,9.8.2.1 willbe In effect end require a minimum flowrate of 2500 gpm. As such. the proposed amendment willnot result ln the plant being placed In a condition not currently allowed during Mode 6 operation and. therefore, does not create the possibflity of a new or different kind of accident.

3. Eliminating the minimum RHR flowlimit of 2500 gpm when the RCS water level Is below the reactor vessel Qange does not involve a significan reduction in the margin of safety. As stated above. the Mode 8 minimum flowlimitof 2500 gpm was established to alleviate the potenUal for boron stratification under refueling conditions. Boron stratification is only a concern with the large volumes of water present when the refueling cavity is filled.

Sufficient mixing exists, even at low RHR flowrates, to preclude boron stratification when the water level Is below the reactor vessel flange. In addition, the proposed amendment does not result In the plant being placed in a condition not currently allowed by the existing Mode 5 Survefllance Requirement 4.4.1.4.2. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in a significant reducUon in the margin of safety.

Based on the above, the licensee has concluded that the proposed amendment meets the three standards in 10 CFR, 50.92 and; therefore, involves no significant hazards consideration.

The NRC staff has made a preliminary review of the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determlnaflon and agrees with the licensee's analysis.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the requested amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Cameron Village Regional Library, 1930 Clark Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27805.

Attorneyforlicensee: R. E Jones, General Counsel, Carolina Power Ik-Light Company, P. O. Box 1S51, Raleigh, North Carolina 27802 NRCProject Director: Elinor G.

Adensam Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. SM54 and SMSS, Byron Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, IIIInots;and Docket Nos. 50456 and 50-457, Braldwood Station, Unit Nos, 1 and 2, WillCounty, Illinois Date ofapplication foramendments:

December 23, 1987, supplemented April 3, 1989.

'escription ofamendments request:

The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification Tables 3.3-1 and 4.3-1, as requested in Generic Letter 85-09 for Reactor Trip System Automatic Actuation using shunt trip coil attachments,

. Basis forproposed no significant hazards considsratian determination:

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

1. Involves a significant increase in probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or

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

3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed changes requested have been evaluated as presented below:

(1) The automatic actuation of the shut trip coil attachment provides an alternate method to open the reactor trip coil breakers. When a reactor trip signal is generated, there are diverse mechanisms to provide a reactor-breaker trip which would mirimize the possibility of an Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) occurring: The proposed changes revise the surveillances to require independent testing of the undervoltage and shunt trip coil attachment for the manual reactor trip and the reactor trip breakers.

These surveillances provide assurance of reactor trip breaker operability when required. Since there are now two diverse trip mechanisms, a

change is also proposed to allow forty-eight (48) hours to restore one of the trip features when it becomes inoperable, before a reactor shutdown is required.

This is conservative because it recognizes that there are.two trip mechanisms instead of one and allows forty-eight (48) hours to restore the inoperable trip feature. This change is based on the allowable time referenced in the NRC Generic Letter 8549.

Removal of note 14, for the Braidwood Technical Specifications is administrative in nature.

(2) The proposed changes do not change the manner in which the reactor protection system provides plant protection.'The addition of surveillance test requirements provides assurance that the Reactor functions willoccur when required. Present plant equipment is not being altered to accommodate

0 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1989 / Notices these changes, hence. no new failure mechanisms are introduced.

(3) The proposed changes'are expected to increase the overall margin of safety because they provide periodic test requirements for the Reactor Trip Breakers. These proposed surveillance changes are designed to provide assurance of operability of the reactor trip and bypass breakers. Based on the

~ preceding assessment, the staff believes these proposed amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: For Byron Station, the Rockford Public Library, 215 N. Wyman Street, Rockford, Illinois61101; for Braidwood Station, the Wilmington Township Public Library, 201 S.

Kankakee Street, Wilmington, Illinois 60481.

Attorney to licensee: Michael Miller.

Esquire; Sidley and Austin, National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60603.

NRC Project Director. Daniel R.

Muller Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos, 50-373 and S0-374, LaSalie County Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois Date ofappli cation foramendments:

January 30, '1989 Description ofamendments request:

The proposed amendments to Operating License No. NPF-11 and Operating License No. NPF-18 would revise the LaSalle Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications by revising the MAPLHGRLimits Curves to refiect the higher nodal exposure values for specific fuel types.

The MAPLHGRlimitcurves of Technical Specification 3.2.1 for both Units 1 and 2 are being redrawn to reflect higher nodal exposure values for fuel types BCRB176, BCRB219, and BPBCRB2991 The purpose of the revision is that the fullanalyzed range ofnodal exposures was not previously reflected and operation during Cycle 3 ofeach unit is expected to go beyond the limits of the existing curves.,

The MAPLHGRlimits ofTechnical Speciflcation Figures 3.2.1-1 and 3.2.1-2 depict the maximum allowable Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate for'he specific fuel types as a function of nodal exposure. The exposure dependent limits are analyzed by GE and approved by the NRC through reviews of General Electric Standard Application for Reloads (GESTAR). The site Technical Specifications then provide a controlling document to reflect these analyzed limits.

~

During the Cycle 2 reload licensing submittals for both LaSalle units (Amendment 40 for Unit 1 - NPF-11, Amendment 32 for Unit2-NPF-18), the MAPLHGRlimitcurves for fuel type BCRB299L were drawn to the same exposures (30,000 MWD/STU) as the initialcycle fuel curves for simplification. The GE analyzed exposure range ofup to 44,500 MWD/

STU (49.0 GWD/MTU)was reviewed and approved in those submittals (GE "Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal" documents 23A1843 and 23A4735 for Units 1 and 2, respectively).

Redrawing of these curves is an administrative change only, and will

'dequately reflect the analyzed exposure range of the BCRB299L bundles throughout their useable bundle lifetime.

Basis'for proposed no significant hazanis consideration determinatiom The Commission has provided standards for determining whether no significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no signiflcant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind ofacddent from an acddent previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a

" margin of safety.

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

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated because these restrictions on power distribution are based on analysis performed with the NRC approved methods and are provided to ensure that these consequences ofaccidents remain within the existing criteria for LaSalle.

2. Create the possibility ofa new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated because the proposed revisions place restrictions on power distribution thus eliminating new or different kinds of acddents from those previously analyzed.

3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin ofsafety because the specification revisions provide limitations on the power distribution

,intended to ensure that the ECCS and fuel thermal mechanical criteria continue to be protected.

LocalPublic Document Room locotiom Public Library ofIllinoisValley Community College, Rural Route No. 1, Ogelsby, Illinois61348.

Attorney to licensee: Michael I. Miler.

Esquire: Sidley and Austin, One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois60N3.

NRCProject Director. Daniel R.

Muller Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Docket No.56-213, Had dam Neck Plant, Middlesex County, Connecticut; Northeast Nuciear Energy Company et aL Docket Nos. 50-245, 50-338, and 5M23, MOlstone Nuclear Power Station Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, New London County, Connecticut Date ofamendment request: March 13.

=

1989 Descr(ption ofamendment request:

By'n application dated March 13, 1989, Connecticut Yankee AtomicPower Company (CYAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) proposed to amend the Technical.

Spedfications (TS) of the Haddam Neck and Millstone Units 1, 2 and 3 plants.

The amendment would delete Figure 6.2-1, "Offsite Organization," and Figure 6.2-2, "UnitOrganization." from the Technical Specifications and would revise TS section 6'to require the Inclusion of these organizational charts in the Quality Assurance Topical Report.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinoti ore The Commission has provided standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c) for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists. A proposed amendment to an Operating License for a facilityinvolves a no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in th'e probability of consequences ofan accident previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of acddent from any acddent previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

CYAPCO/NNECO has reviewed the proposed change and provided the followinganalysis. The change would not:

1, Involve a significan increase in the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously analyzed. The.

proposed changes are strictly administrative tn nature.'I%Is administrative change willnot increase the probability ofoccurrence or the conseqaences ofan acddent previously analyxe*

2. Create the possibility ofa new or different kind of acddent from any previously analyzed. Since there are no changes in the way the plant is operated, the potential for an unanalyzed acddent fs not created. No new failure modes are

'ntroduced.

The proposed changes are edmhdstrative and have no affect on plant operation.

s. Involve a aigiditcant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed changes

Fedeza(

Regisier / VaL 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, %$$ / Ho(fees remove the offsfte aad oaaite organhathm charts from the Technical Speciflcatfoas aad ate strictly administrative. Similar orgaafsatfaa charts are amtaiaed ia tbe QA Topfcsf Report, which is updated annually.

Sface the proposed chaages do aot affect the consequences ofany accident previously anai3rzerL thne fs no reductfoa Ia the margin ofsefety.

The Conimfssion staff has reviewed and agrees with the CYAPCO/NNECO analysis and believes that the )Icensees have met the three criteria for a no significant hazards consideration.

Accordingly. the Commission proposes to determie that this change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

LocalPublic Document Boom location: Russell Library. 123 Broad Street Mddletown, Connecticut 06457 and Waterford Public Library, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford. Connecticut OB385.

Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Garfield, Esquire, Day. Berry tk Howard, Counselors at Law, City Place, Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499.

NRCeject Director: John F. Stolz Consumers Power Company, Docket No.

50-255, Pafhiacfes P)ent, Van Buren County, Michigan Date ofmnendment request:

November 21, 1935 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise the pmvisions in the Palisades Plant.

Technical Spedfications (TSs) with the addition ofnew sections relating to the Alternate Shutdown System.

Specificaffy. the proposed amendment would add Section 3.25, Alternate Shutdown System, which woold require the openibihty of the Alternate Shutdawn System whenever the reactor coolant temperature reaches or exceeds 325 F. This section spedflcally identifies the minimum equipment to be operable, their locations, and ection to be taken in tho event of inoperability of any specified equipmenL The proposed amendment would also add Section 4M which would requfre perfonnance ofperiodic surveillance testing ofcertain Alternate Shutdown System equipment. This section specifically fdentifies the Alternate Shutdown System components subject to the surveillance requirements.

The amendment request also proposed other changes not described above. Those proposed changes willbe discussed in a separate notice in the Federal Register when the Commission considers issuance ofthose'changes.

Basis forpmposed no significant hazards consideration determinationr The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no aignfficant hazards considezaSan.

Under the Coaindssfon's regu)atiaea in 10 CFR M.58. this means the operation af the facilityin accordance with the pmposed amendment won)d nat (1) involve a significant Increase in the probability or conseqaences ofan acddent previously evatuateth or (2) create the possibility of a new or different ldnd of acddent from any accfdent previously evaluated: or (3)

Involve a siydficant redaction fn a margin ofsafety.%m Cominission has evaluated the pmposed changes against the above criteria as followL

h. The changes do not involve a significant inczease in the pmbabiffty or consequences or an accident previously evaluated because the Alternate Shutdown System design provides a means to control auxiliary feedwater in the event ofa Qre fn the control room which results in )oss of contml from the

. main control room of the turb~ven auxQiary I'eedwater pump. Athird auxiliary feedwater pump provides a separate injection path to the steam generators in the event of a Qre at the Alternate Hot Shutdown panel which results in loss of control of the normal, auxiliary feedwafer pumpL Therefore.

since a postulated fire cannot disable the auxiliary feedwater function. the change does not involve a signfficant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

B. For the same reasons as cited in paragraph A above, the change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any acddent previously evaluated.

C. The change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the Alternate Shutdown System provides assurances of the auxiliary feedwater function in the event of a fire that disables normal control oftide function. Therefore, the margins of safety assodated with operation of the plant are unchanged Local Public Dacumen! Room location: Van Zoeren Library, Hope College, Holland, Micldgan 49423.

Attorneyforlicensee: Judd L Bacon, Esq.. Consumers Power Company. 212 West Micldgan Avenue, Jackson.

Mchigan 49201.

NRCPleat Director: Theodore R.

Quay, Acting.

Consumers Power Comiumy, Docket No.

50-255, Palisades Plant. Van Buren Couaty, Mddgan Dote ofamendment request: March 10.

1987 Description ofamendment request:

The pmposed amendment would change the Technical Specificatfons to provide clarificatfons and editorial corrections to the Radiological Efnaent Thchnfcaf Specifications PKTS).

Basis fin proposed no significant hazards oansideratzan determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determizdng whether a significant hazards cansideratlon exists as stated in 10 CFR Part 50.92(c). A proposed amendment to an operating license fora facOity involves no significant hazards cansideratfon if operation af the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) invohre a significarit increase it the probabQfty or consequences ofan

. acddent previously evaluated: or (2) create the possibility of a new or different )dnd ofacddent from any accident previously evaluated: or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

The licensee has evaluated the proposed changes against the above standards as required by 10 CFR 50.91(a). The Commission's staff has reviewed the licensee's evaluation and agrees with it.

The licensee has concluded that:

(1) The proposed changes do not favofve a sigaificaat Iacrease ia the probabfffty or consequences of an accIdent prevfoixily evaluated. The changes are administrative in nature ia that they: (a) cfarlfy the existiag requiiements lor sampffag service water discharge (or'ffiueats); (b) remove the surveiHaace zeqaneaients for ihe quarterly testing of the HiRange Notde Gas Monitor high alarm aaaaaciator which does not exist in the plant; sad (c) conects an editorial error ia Technical Specfficatfoa (TS) Ameadmeat

85. None of these changes impact oa phnt design or operation aad consequently the previously evaluated accidents are aot altered.

(2) The proposed changes do aat create the poscibfffty ofa new or different kind of accident from any accfdeat prevtoasly evaluated since, as stated ia (1) above, the chaages are admiaistrative sad essentially clarify service water aampliag requfcemeats and/or correct existing TS ezrazL (3) The pzotrosed changes do aot involve a sigNRcant reduction fa a margin ofsafety since, as stated in (1) aad (Z) above; the changes are administrative aad do aot involve a change ta the manner tn which the plaat is operatecL In additkm. the proposed license amendment fits example (i) of the types ofamendments that are considered not likelyto invohre significant hazards consideration pub)fshed in the Federal Register on March B, 8%0 (51 FR 7751),

in that itis consM ared to be a purely administrative changes to the 'IS; i.e., a change to achieve consistency throughout the TS, coczect an error. or a change in nonmenclatuze.

Based on the above review, the staff proposes to determine that the licensee's

Federal Register / Vol; 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1989 / Notices request does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

LocalPublic Document Room locotiont Van Zoeren Library. Hope College, Holland. Mchigan 49423.

Attorneyforlicensee: Judd LBacon.

Esq., Consumers Power Company. 212 West Mchigan Avenue, Jackson.

Michigan 49201.

NRC Project Director: Theodore R.

Quay, Acting.

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No, 50-341, Fermi-2, Monroe County, Michigan Date ofamendment requestt October 7, 1988 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed change deletes the requirement to perform response time testing of the High DrywellPressure actuation of the High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) System. The change willeliminate unnecessary operation of the HPCI system and thus enhance overall HPCI system reliability.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)] for a proposed amendment to a facilityoperating license. Aproposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no slgnlficant hazards consideration if operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2)

Create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3)

Involve a significant'reduction in a margin of safety.

The licensee has evaluated the proposed change against the above standards as required by 10 CFR 50.92.

The licensee concluded that:

(1) The change does not Involve a siydficsnt hctease In the probebflity or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The Fermi-2 ECCS anelysts takes no credit for the High Dtywell Pressure actuation of the HPCI system and the High Dtywell Pressure signal has been found to precede the Low Reactor Water Level signal for all break sixes. Thus. the time response capebility of the HPCI system can be conservatively verified by testing the system time response to only the Low Reactor Water Level actuatton signal. The change reduces the number ofHPCI system starts required for surveillance testing and thus Increases the overall reliabilityof the HPCI system, This increased reliabilityacts to decteese the probability or consequences ofpreviously evaluated acddents, (2) Create the Possibility ofa new or dtffetent kind ofacddent from any accident previously evaluated. The change does not modify plant design or operation atid therefore creates no new ecddent modes.

The reduced response time testing does not create the posstbillty ofa new or different kind of accident shee the remahhg functional test requirements ensure that any credible failure of the dtedtty no longer response time tested h detected In a timely manner

- (3) Involve a signiflcsnt reduction In a mstgh of safety. As discussed In (1) above, the change acts to hcrease overall reliability of the HPCI system. As such, the change acts to increase the margin of safety. The margin ofsafety is mshtahed since the HPCI system Is stfllconservatively response time tested and the circuitrywldch is no longer response time tested does not represent e credible mechatdem fordegtsdatton of the HPCI system response time.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's evaluation and concurs with it. On the basis of the above consideration. the staff proposes to find that the changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Monroe County Library System, 3700 South Custer Road.

Monroe, Michigan 48161.

Attorneyforlicensee: John Flynn, Esq., Detroit Edison Company, 2000 Second Avenue, Detroit, Mchigan 48228.

NRCProject Director. Theodore R.

Quay, Acting.

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi-2, Monroe County, Michigan Date ofamendments request:

November 14, 1988 Description ofamendments request:

The proposed amendment would delete the mass fiowrate values associated with Steam Line Flow - High Trip Function ofboth the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) system isolation and High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) system isolation as listed in Table 3.3.2-1 items 3.a,1 and 4.a.1, respectively. The change also finalizes the Trip Set Point and Allowable Values for these trip functions Bosis forproposed no signi%'cant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists

[10 CPR 50.92(c) J for a proposed, amendment to a facilityoperating license. Apropose'd amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significan increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of acddent from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

The licensee has evaluated the proposed change against the above standards as required by 10 CFR 50.92.

The licensee conduded that:

(1) The proposed change to delete the mass flowrate and assodated "from Items 3~.'1 and 4.a.1 ofTable 3.3.2-2 does not Involve a, signtflcsnt increase in the ptobability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The mass flowrate value h not produced by the installed Instrumentation and it is not necessary nor required for the

'Mp Setpoht to perform the function of Isolation of the RCIC or HPCI system. Tee mass flowrate value was used In the destgn calculations ofsteam flowacross the steam line orifice and wag used In developtng the differential pressure setpohts and allowable values. The Idgb dp Trip Setpoint Is not affected by the deletion ofthe mass flowtate value and ", not h It changed by the proposed amendment. Therefore, the change willresult h no change to the assumptions or scenarios used to evaluate the probability or consequences of evaluated ecddents.

(2) The proposed change to delete the mass flowrate and associated " from Items 3.a.1 and 4.a.1 ofTable 3.3.2-2 does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of ecddent from any acddent previously evaluated. &e proposed change does not affect system operation, nor does It change the Trip Setpohts or Allowable Values based on dp, and no safety-related equipment Is altered. The mass flowrate value h.not requited to prevent any accident. Trip Set Points and Allowable Values, based on dp, are retained "as Is" for the two Items.

(3) The proposed charge to delete the mass flowrate and assodated "from Items 3.a.1

~

and 4.a.1 ofTable 33&2 does not Involve a significant reduction In a margin ofsafety.

The Ttlp signel generated by a high dp Ia not affected by this change and therefore the actuation and Isolation function remains the same. Therefore, the removal of the mass flowtate numbers and assodated " does not reduce any margin of safety.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's evaluation and concurs with it. On the basis of the above consideration, the staff proposes to find that the changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Monroe County Library System, 3700 South Custer Road, Monroe, Michigan 48161.

Attorneyforlicensee: John Flynn.

Esq., Detroit Edison Company.'2000 Second Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 4822IL NRCProject Director. Theodore R.

Quay, Acting.

Duke Power Company, et aL, Docket..

Nos. SM13 and 6M14, Catawba Nudear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina Dote ofamendment request: April6, 1989

Fedar@

Re or / Uo). 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1889 / Notices Description ofameadmeal rrrqrrest:

The proposed revision would aHow the conduct of a demonstration program regarding Interface comp atibHIty between three rod control cluster assemblies (RCCAs) supplied by Babcock and WiioxFuel Company (SWFC) and Westinghouse Eue) assemblies at Catawba Unit 2 It would also allow the comparison of the wear characteristics af various RCCA ciad materials. 'Ihh demonstration program would Involve changing the description of the Control Rod Assemblies in Section 54.2 ofthe Technical Specifications {TSs) forCatawba Unit 2 only. Unit 1 is Included because the TSs forboth units are combined in one document.

Two ofthe demonstration assemblies consist ofcontml mds fabricated with Armaloypated 304 stainless steel cladding. The third assembly consists of control mds fabricated with chromium carbide coated Inconel 825 cladding, In-reactor experience with the chromium "

carbide coating has shown that the coathg performs extremely weIL The three RCCAs supplied by BWFC maintain the same design features as the Westinghouse 17x17 RCCAs. Ailof the primary interEaces have been verified by onslte dimensioaal measurement inspections made at McGuire Units 1 and 2. hi additIon, a dmnmy RCCA was fabricated and shipped to Catawba Unit 2 for interface and handling checkout.

The licensee's submittal provides a summary ofthe design information and thermal hydraulic compatibHity analysis for the demonstration RCCAs.

Basis forprrrposed na significant hazards considhradan determinarirpnr The Commission has provided standards Eor determining whether a significant hazards consideration exIsts (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a faciHty involves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant Increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated or (2) create the possibHIty of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed revision would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the change fn the shutdown margin for the three denaonstration RCCAs is negligiMe, and measurements would be performed during each cycle initial startup to verify the acceptability of the rod worths.

The proposed revision woald not (2) create the poeslI6ity ofa new or difierent kind ofsccident fram any accident previoasbj evdeated because the demonstration RCCAs would function ehnQarly to those designed by Westinghouse. and no new modes of operation are introduced.

Finally. the proposed revision would not {3) involve a slgntaciint reduction in a margin ofsafety because the BWFC RCCAs should per5mm in accordance with Catawba TS limits before Unit 2 would commence its operation following the current refueHng outage.

AccordIngly, the Commission proposes to determine that the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consirieration.

Local Public Dacrrrnent Boom location: York County Library, 138 East Black Street, Rock HiH,South Carolina 29730 Attorneyforlicensee: Mr.Albert Carr, Duke Power Company, 422 South Church Street. Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 NRC Project Director: David B.

Matthews Duqucsne LightCompany, Docket No.

50-884, Beaver VaHey Power Sta6on.

Unit No. 1, Shlppingport, Pennsylvania Date ofamendment request: March 2, 1989 Descrr'laban ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise the reactor trip system and engineered safety feature (ESF) actuation system instrumentatiou trip setpoints and aHowable values. based upon the results of a re-analysis of the instrument channel Inaccuracies. AH the changes are located in Tables 22-1 and a3-4 of the Technical Specifications. The licensee submit ted Wes tinghouse repor t WCAP-11419, "Westinghouse Setpoint Methodology Eor Protection Systems, Beaver Valley Unit 1," to support this amendment request. The changes are needed to keep the reactor trip and ESF actuation setpoints. after factoring in the.

revised allowances ofinaccuracy, withinlimits assumed in the Final Safety Analysii Report.

Basis forpraposadno significant hazards coasiderarion derenrrinati on:

The Conunission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). Aproposed amendment to an operating Qcense for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the EacHity in accordance with the proposed amendment wouM not (1) involve a significant Increase in the probability or consequences oE an accident previously evaluated: (2) create the possibility of a new or different kirxfofaccident from any accident previoissly evaieateiL or (3) involve a signiGcarrt reduction in a margia ofsefety.

The pmposed change does not imrolve a signiicant hazards consideration because:

(1) The basis ofthe reactor trip system and EFS actuation system trip settings are the hmits in the safety ana1yes. The proposed changes to the trip settings and alLowable values ensure that these safety analysis limits are maintained when the appropriate allowances for Instnnnent channel inaccuracies, as revised, are considered. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

(2) The proposed amendment would not cause any changes in plant equipment or design. Therefore, it does not create the probabHIty ofan accident or a malfuiiction different from ones previous}y evaluated.

(3) These changes wiHnot affect the

'ssumptions or consequences of any safety analysis presented in the FSAR.

Therefore, the amendment wiH not involve a signi5cant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

Accordingly. the staff proposes to determine that this amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Boom locaiionr B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 683 Franklin Avenue, AHquippa.

Pennsylvania 15001.

Attorneyforlicensee Gerald Charnoff; Esquire, Jay E Silberg, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts 5 Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW..

Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Preject Director: John F. Stolz GulfStates Utihties Company, Docket No. 50~ River Band Station, Unit 1 West FeHciaua Parish. Louisiaaa Date ofamendmen! request: March 21, 1989 Descrr'ptrb n ofamendment request.

The proposed amendment would relocate the requirements for the examination and testing ofsnubbers.

The licensee's proposal would substitute Technical Specifica6on (TS) 48.5 and the NRC approved Revision 2 to the River Bend Station Inservice Inspection (ISI) program Eor the current TS 3/4.7,4, "Suubbers". TS 4.0$ states. in pard 4.0$ Serviigance Requirements for inservioe tespectioa and testiiig oEASLK code Qaas

%. 2. a 3 cosa percents shall be appgcable as follows:

e. Inservice tespeetiao ofASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 aorspaeents and leservice testing ofASMRCode Cals 1. 2 and 3 pmnps

Federak Regh4es / VoL 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1889 / Notices asd valves chsII be pcrfacmcd h accordance with Section Xiof lhc ASMEBo0cr snd Prcssure Veccci Code cnd cpplhcble Addenda as rcquiicd by 10 CFR 50, Section 50.55a(gI. except where cpccUIc writlcnreflef hac been grcnted by the Commhctcn pursuant to 10 CPR Sh Section 5055o(g)(8)(I).

Snubber inspection requirements are included in ArticleIWF. Section 11 of the ASME Code and Revision 2 of the River Bond Station (RBS) ISI program.

Thus. TS 4.0.5 and the ISI program would define the snubber requirements.

Because of the proposed relocation of the'snubber examination and testing requirements, the licensee's proposal would delete TS 3/4%4, Figure 42.4-1.

",Sam, lc Plan for Snubber Functional Test". and Bases Section 3(4.7.4.

Basis forproposed na significant hazara'a canside'ration deternu'nation:

The'ommission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). Aproposed ainend'nent to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation ofthe facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would noti (1) involve a signiiicant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated: or (2) create the possibility of a new or different ldnd of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in e margin ofsafety. The licensee provided an analysis that addressed the above three standards in the amendment application.

1. No aignUIcant hcrcasc In the pmbsbility of consequences of an accident previously ovsluslcd results from the Proposed change bccaucc:

The proposed change does not result In a change lo the plant design or hcpectton sud testing. As such. the proposed change does not chengc the response of the plant or equipment required for safety as described in Chs ptcrc e snd 15 of the RBS Updated Safety Analysis Report. The NRC a pprovcd RBS ISI Plan continues lo exceed the minimum Inspection rcquircmcnls ofASMESccthm XI for snubbcrs. The scope ofsctusl examlnsttons has not been reduced.

The requirements of the ament Tcdmicsl Spectficstionc governhg snubber hs pcclious at RBS have bcca hcorpocstcd hto the NRC spprovcd RBS ISI Plan with the foilowhg cxce ptloniui A. Umlthg Condition foc Operation A more conservsthrc approach wIIIbe uliihed by considering s system hopcrsbh lo which an operable snubber ic attached.

without slhwhg for s 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> component evaluation period prior lo this dctennhsthn.

This Is tu keeping with ASMESection XIsnd the current Technical Speciflcsthn dcflultfan of OPERABILITY.Thh change Is Intended lo conform the RBS Tcchritcil Spcciflccticxia with the NRC approved RBS ISI Plan, the requirements of AS%KScctioa XImd lhc current deflnlthci of OPHIABILITY.

B. The propoecd change wIBhdude snubber load ccpectty cc sn scMItiossl criterion for samph type cdcctton. Snubber sample cchcbou based on load cspecily as s crItertou provkhc c more complete crocc section of plant snubber populsHon. snd therefore, slhws for more accurate lcsl results suet tsflmc mode cvalustlon. Since only scccccibitlty datcrmtncc the scope of cubccqucnt visual hspcct ton, lhh erldtttoncl criterion willhave uo Impact ou lhc scope of cubsequcnl curvcillcnccc.

C. Visusl hspccttaQ8 The proposed change lo sQow cubccqocut examiasttons of inaccessible snubber during reactor shutdown follows the guidelines for successive hcpcctlonc as cpcciflcd in ASME Section XLlbc NRC approved Rcvhtcxi 2 lo lhe RBS ISI Phm snd Revision 2 ta the Standard Tcchulcsi Spcciflcciions. Athwhg these cxamhcthns to be dclsycd until the next reactor shutdown of culflcicnt rhration willsiso allow hcreaccd plant avaiLability snd willcubctantlally decrease mss-rcm exposures ss a result of these examinations.

Since these proposed changes do not result in a change to plsat chsign or operating modes sad ch not result In s reduction in the scope of required snubber exsmhstionc.

there Ic no significant hcrcssc In the probability or consequences of any scctdcut previously cvsluslccL

2. The propoecd change willuol crcatc the possibility ofs new or different khd of accident than any previously cvsluslcd because:

This proposal cuhiis the transfer of rcsponcibliity for snubber hcpcctioos to compsrsbh pmgramc, both ofwbkh comply with the mhimum requirements of ASME Section XI.The quantitstI vs snd quslitalivc scope of suubbcr cxsmhathns bas not bccci reduced below the mhlmum rcquhcments of

'ASME Section XLSince the proposed change does not result h a change to the plsnt design cr opcrathg modes oc reduce lhe scope ol subsequent cxamhsthns, the proposed change cannot htroducc ths possibility ofs new or different kind ofacckhnt than prcvtoucly cvsluctccL

3. The proposed change does not involve s cigntflcsnt reduction in the maigta afsafely because:

The epprosch to ambbcr snd system operability proposed in thh amcndmcut request ic more concecvstivc than that fouud in thc current Tcchuksi Spcctflcsthuc. Thh added cousccvsthui willact to Increase. not decrease. any cxhthg margin of safety.

Additionally, the proposed change does nol reduce the scope ofsubsequent cxsminc ttoss. Further, cubscqucnt revisions to the RBS ISI Plan erc required tobe submitted for NRC review snd approval prhr lo implementation. Therefore, the proposed change wiltnot decrease the margin of safety.

Based on the above ccmstdcrsttonc. the proposed change docs not hcrcasa the probability or the consequences of s previously evaluated acctdcnt. does uol create the poesibtiily ofs new or dtffcrcut kind of accident fram any prcvtoaely evaluated. snd ches not Involve s reduction In the msrgh ol cstcty. Thercfare, CulfStates Utilitiescompany proposes that no significant hcscrch are hvolvccL The starches reviewed the hcensee'e no significant hazards consideration determination. Based on the revtevv and the above discussion, the staff proposed to determine that the proposed changes do not hlvo}vea significant hazards considerathn.

Local Public Document Roam Location: Governmerit Documents

'epartment Louisiana State University.

Baton Rouge. Louisiana 70003 Attorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Canner, Jr., Esq., Conner and Wetterhahn, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW..

Washhgton, DC 20008 NRC Project Director: Jose A. Calvo IllinoisPower Company, Soyhmd Power Cooperative, IncDocket No.~,

Clinton Power Station, Uakt No. 1, DeWitt County,'llinois Date ofamendment request:

December 21, 198&

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications SAk2.7 to delete a limitation on the period ofapproval for drywell purge and vent system operation. The speciflc limitation is a footnote wldch states that the allowed system operation h applicable for the "

period from Initialfuel load to 3 months after completion of the first refueling outage. The submittal states that this limitation should have only been Included for the operation ofthe containment purge systein and was (nappropriately fncluded for the drywall purge and vent system.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinatian:

'he staff haa evaluated this proposed amendment and determined that it involves no s(gniflcant hazards consideration. According to 10 CFR 50.92(c), a proposed amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards consideration Ifoperation ofthe facilityin accordance with the amendment would noti (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated or (2) Create the possiMity of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated: or (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident

. previously evahiatcd because the proposed change would only allow contmued limited usa ofthe drywell purge and vent system. The use of the system for pressure contra) vvas previously evaluated and approved by

15830 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1989 / Notices the NRC in Clinton's Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report 5.

The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the proposed change introduces no changes to plant design or operation of the facility.

The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the changes do not alter the criteria for system operation. It only allows the system operation to continue past the original limited period.

For the reasons stated above, the staff believes this proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Roam location: Vespasian Warner Public Library. 120 West Johnson Street, Clinton, Illinois 61727.

Attorneyforlicensee: Sheldon Zabel, Esq., Schiff, Hardin and Waite, 7200 Sears Tower, 233 Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606 NRC Praj ect Director: Daniel R.

Muller Indiana Michigan Power Company, Dockets Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald C. Cook Nudear Plant, Units Nos. 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan Date ofamendments request:

September 6, 1988 Description ofamendments request:

The amendment would delete Figure 8.2-

1. "Organizational Relationships Within the American Electric Power System Pertaining to QA & QC and Support of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant" and Figure 8.2-2, "FacilityOrganization-Donald C. Cook - Unit No. 1" and "...

Unit No. 2", from the Technical Specifications, in response to Generic Letter 88~.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c) for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration, if operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated: or (2)

Create the possibility ofa new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3)

Involve a signficant reduction in a margin of safety. The Indiana Mchigan Power Company reviewed the proposed change and determined, and the NRC staff concurs, that:

(I) The proposed amendment does not Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated because deletion of the organization charts from the Technical Specifications does not affect plant operation. As in the past. the NRC will continue to be informed of organization changes through other required controls. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.34(b)(8)(i) the applicant's organizational structure is required to be included in the Final Safety Analysis Report. Chapter 13 of the Final Safety Analysis Report provides a description of the organization and detailed organization charts. As required by 10 CFR 50.71(e), the Indiana Mchigan Power Company submits annual updates to the FSAR. Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) govern changes to organization described in the Quality Assurance Program. Some of these organizational changes require prior NRC approval. Also, it is Indiana Mchigan Power Company's practice to inform the NRC of organizational changes affecting the nuclear facilities prior to implementation.

(2) The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different idnd of accident than previously evaluated because the proposed change is administrative in nature, and no physical alterations ofplant configuration or changes to set points or operating parameters are proposed.

(3) The proposed amendment does not involve a signtficant reduction in a margin of safety because Indiana Michigan Power Company. through its Quality Assurance Programs, its coinmitment to maintain qua! ified personnel in positions of responsibility. and other required controls.

assures the safety functions willbe performed at a high level ofcompetence.

Therefore. removal of the organizational chart fr'om the Technical Specifications will not affect the margin of safety.

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

LocalPublic Document Room location: Maude Preston Palenske Memorial Library, 500 Market Street, St.

Joseph, Mchigan 49085.

Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Charnoff, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

NRCProject Director: Theodore R.

Quay, Acting.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No, 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Date ofamendment request: January 27, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The existing 250 Voltbatteries at Cooper Nuclear Station are being replaced during the 1989 refueling outage by new lead-calcium batteries that have a greater ampere-hour capacity. The proposed amendment would raise the battery cell minimum voltage from 2.0 Volt to 2,15 Volt and change the minimum corrected specific gravity from 1.190 to 1.195 for the pilot cells and to specify a minimum of 1,200 specific gravity for the average ofall connected cells. This is associated with replacing the present lead acid plate cell with lead-calcium cells.

Also, this requires a battery service or performance discharge test once each operating cycle depending on battery condition, time interval since the previous performance discharge test, and age of the battery.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinationr In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.92, the licensee submitted the followingsignificant hazards evaluation:

1. Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofany accident previously evaluatedf Evaluation:

1. The proposed amendment willreplace the existing 250 Volt DC batteries with higher capacity lead. calcium cells that require a higher floating voltage and different spedfic gravity values. The capability to carry out the intended function and operation of the 250 VoltDC System willbe unaffected and the system willcontinue to satisfy its safety design bases as stated in the Updated Safety Analysis Report. With the proposed niinimui cell voltage and corrected specific gravities, the battery willhave adequate capacity to supply the required emergency loads followinga design basis acddent. The system performance willbe improved as the existing batteries are nearing the end of their design life.The proposed amendment willnot.

Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any acddent previously evaluated.

2. The present requirement is to subject the 250 VDC battery to a perfonnance discharge test once every operating cyde. The proposed amendment willchange the surveillance testing on the 250 Voltbattery to require a battery service or a performance discharge test once every operating cycle depending on battery condition, time interval siiice the previous performance discharge test, and age of the battery. The new requirements are consistent with the IEEE Battery Working Group draft Standard Technical Specifications forInstallations at BWR facilities. Additionally, the NRC has previously accepted these surveillance requirements for the 125 VDC batteries with the issuance ofAmendment No. 122 to the CNS license, and the.250 VDC battery cells are identical to those supplied for the 125 VDC batteries. These surveillance requirements willassure the battery capacity Is adequate to supply the required 250 Volt DC loads in the time period followingthe design basis accident. The proposed amendment willnot Involve a signtficant

Fodctzal RoIJetee / Ual. 54. Ncx 74 / Wedtiesday. April 1Q, 288$ / @cities increase In tha probabUity or coaaeqisences oE any aocident previously avahiatecL

2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility ofa new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated?

Evaluation:

1. The proposed amendment willchange the minimum cell voltages and speci Sc gravISes to reflect the replacement of the existing 250 Voltbatteries with new Iead-calcium ceHs. The operation and functhn of the 250 Volt DC System willbe unaffected and remain as described in the CNS USAR.

The proposed amendment wIIInot create the posslbfilty of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

2. Th'e proposed amendment would revise the surveIOance testnig Eor the 250 Volt station batteries which would better hisure the operablHty of this system; however, this proposed amendment willnot change the operation or function oE the 250 VoltDC System. as described In the USAR The proposed amendment wIIInot allow any new mode ofplant operation or create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from any acddent previoiisly evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety2 Evaluation:

1. The new 250 Voltbatteries willhave greater ampere. hour capacity to safeguard the station In the event ofa design basis accident until offsge ACpower sources are restored. The proposed amendment does not Invohre a stgntficant redaction In the margin of safety.

2 The proposed amendment wIIIrevise the surveillance testing on the 250 Voltstation batteries and willnot affect the ability of the 250 VoltDC System to perform its Intended function during normal or acddeot conditions. Tha proposed amendineat does not Involve a elgnificant reduction in the margin of safety.

B. Additional basis for proposed no significant hazards conslderathn determination:

The Commission has provided giddance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether a stgnIIIcant harards consideration exhrts by providing certain examples (48 FR 14trrte. This change Is considered to fit the examples "(Ix)A iepidr or replacement of a malar component m system important to safety, Ifthe following conditions are met: (1) The repair or replacement process Involves practices wldch have been successlally Implemented.... and (21 The repaired or replacement component or system does not result In a significant change in its safety hmetlon... " It is the District's belief that thb change request falls within the giddance provided.

Based on the previous discussion, the licensee concluded that the prapased amendment request does nat Involve o significant hicrease in the probability ar consequences of an accddent previously evaluated nar create the passibility af a new or different kind af occddent fram any accident previously evaluated; nar hrrolve a slgtdficortt reductfan ia the required margin ofsafety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's na slgnificant hazards causideratians determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis. The staff has.

therefore, made a proposed determinatian that the licensee's request does not involve a significant hannds consideration.

Local Public Document Boom location: Aubum Public Library, 118 15th Street, Auburn, Nebraska 68308.

Attorneyforb'censsa Mr. GN.

Watson. Nebraska Public Power District. Post Office Box 499. Columbus, Nebraska 88601.

NBCeject Director: Jaae A. Calva Niagara Mohawk Fcswer Carporutioir, Docket No.58-220, Nme MfiePoint Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2, Oswego County, New York Date ofamendmenl request: March 16, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specificatlone Ia carrect an error in Table 3.3.4 "Primary Containment Isolation Valve Linea Entering Fusee Space of the Containment." The change wiIIclarify that the containment spray Isolation valves do nat receive automatic irdtiation signals ta open on reactor Iow-low water level and high drywell pressure.

late affected valves are open during plant operation as required by station operating procedures and receive no automatic closure signals including the signal for cantaimnent isolation. The valves may be closed during system testing, removal ofwater from the suppression pool, maintenance or suppression pool cooling. The Final Safety Analysis Repart was previously revised ta make tide change. The proposed amendment corrects the Technical Speclfications accordingly.

Basis forproposed na significan hasards cansicirrratian detenninaticrr.-

The Cammhrsian has provided standards for determhdng whether o significant hasards amslderation exists as stated in 10 CFR 5092. A proposed amendment ta an aperatmg Ifcenstr for a facilityinvolves no stgnificant haeards consideratiaius ifoperation of the facility in accorder~ with a proposed amendment watdd nal: (1) Involves o significant increase ln the prababifity or consequences of an accident previously evatuate4 or (2J create the possibihty af o new or diHerent kind ofaccident fram any accident prevkrusly evaluated: ar (3]

involveisignihni reduction irt a margin of safety.

In its March 14 1989 submittal, the licensei provided the followinganelyshu The operatke ofNtne h6he Puhst Utstr 2, Iss acccldance with tbe yroposehimandnaat.

willnot create the poaslbsTsty ofa sew EK different killoE accident from aay accident previously evakiatecL This change corrects an error so that tha Technical Specltications conform to the actual phmt design. Operation ofthe Contaimnent Spray System Is not effected by this change. As inrch. the changes Is admtnlslrative In natare and does not create the probabiHty oE a new or ddferent ldnd of accident from any accident previously evaluated. h table sunilar to 22.4 In the FSAR has prevtousiy been corrected.

The operation ofNhe M'de Potnt UnitL In accordance with the proposed amendnvnit, willnot Involve a significant reduction In a margin of safety.

The contehment spray system operation is not effected by this change. Any one ofthe four containraent spray loops (with its raw water pump) Is capable ofmaintaining the containment temperature and pressure wtthhi the design bash. hutomatic restoration of a loop in ibe test mode is not necessary to maintain existing safety margins. This change does not Involve any significant rediiction bi margin of safety.

The operation ofNine Mie Point Unit 1, Io accordance with the proposed amendment, willnot Involve a slgnIIIcant Increase In the probablHty or consequences or an acddent previously evahnted.

This change does not affect tLe capability ofthe containment spray system to meet its design basis. Since the original system design basis Is met, the probabtHty or consequences ofan accident previously evahiated are not increased.

Based on the above. the staff proposes Io determirte that the amendment will not involve a significntt hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Roam loccrtion Reference and Documents Department, Penfield Library. State Univendly af New York,Oswego, New York1322L Attnrneyfar licensee ~y B. Conner.

JrEsqtdre, Conner gi Vtretterhohn, Selte 1050, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW..

Washington, DC 20006.

hRC Pleat Drrrratar; Robert A.

Capro Northeast Nuclear Energy'Carupaay, et 01., Docket Na. 60423, MiHstena Nuclear Power Slaiksn, UnitNcs.g, Now Laudaa County. Connecticut Dale afanrendment reguest: March 10, 1989 Descriptian ofamendment rearrest:

The proposed change Ia Paragraph 2A ofFacilityOperating Lfcensa NPF'-49 would delete the reserence ter the City of Burlington as one of the licensees far Millstone Unit 3.

Basis forprapased'ncr significant irasanfs cansicferatiarr cfetenninotraru By letter dated February 2$, 2989, the NRC staff was Informed of cr transfer of

15832 Federal Rag(ster / Vol, 54, No, 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1989 / Notices a minor percentage ownership share between twouf the existing licensees of Millstone Unit No. S effective as of February 15, 1989. Specifically, the change involves the transfer of the 0.0435 percent joint ownership interest of the City ofBurlington, Vermont to the Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative (CMEEC). Both the City of Burlington and the CMEEC have been associate participants in Millstone Unit No. 3 as provided in the Sharing Agreement dated September 1, 1973.

The staff has made a determination in accordance with 10 CFR M.92 that this application for amendment is enveloped by example viii(March 6, 1986, 51 FR 7751), a change to a license to reflect a minor adjustment in ownership among co-owners, and, as such, does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

LocalPublic Document Room location: Waterford Public Library, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut 08385.

Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Garfield, Esquire, Day, Berry 8 Howard, One Constitution Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut 08103-3499, NRCProject Director: John F. Stoiz Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al., Docket No. 50423, Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut Dote ofomendment request: March 14, 1989 Description ofamendment request; The proposed amendment would change the Mllstone Unit 3 Technical Specifications (TS) to replace the Surveillance Requirements ofTS 4.3,4, "Turbine Overspeed Protection," as follows: (1) TS 4.3.4.2 would be deleted and replaced with a reference to the requirements of the "Turbine Overspeed Protection Maintenance and Testing Program," and (2) TS 6.5.1.8, "Responsibilities," would be supplemented by adding item (j) which would require that the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) provide for "Review ofUnit Turbine Overspeed Protection Maintenance and Testing

, Program and revisions thereto." In addition, a fcotnote would be added to the applicability for TS 3.3.4 to state that the Turbine Overspeed Protection System need not be operable, "... In MODE 2 or 3 with all maIn steani line isolation valves and associated bypass valves in the closed position and all other steam flowpaths to the turbine isolated."

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

By letter dated November 7, 1988, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (the licensee) submitted the Mllstone Unit 3 Turbine Overspeed Protection Maintenance and Test Program (TOPMTP). The TOPMTP encompasses the surveillance requirements ofSection 4.3,4.2. In addition, the TOPMPT provides for other turbine overspeed system related tests and for high and low pressure turbine rotor Inspections, thereby assuring an acceptably low probability of a rotor burst at or near design overspeed. Avoidingdestructive overspeed and rotor failures Is essential to minimizing the probability of the generation of turbine missiles which could impact and damage safety-related components, structures, and equipment, The more comprehensive TOPMPI'rovides the necessary assurance that the probability of turbine generated missiles willremain at or below the criteria of 1 x 10'per year in accordance with Standard Review Plan, Section 3.5.1.3, Turbine Mssiles." The proposed change to TS 8.5.1.6(f) would provide for administrative and technical oversight, by the licensee, for the

TOPMPT, With regard to the proposed footnote to TS 3.3.4, the provision would allow the inoperability of the Turbine Overspeed Protection System, during operational Modes 2 and 3 (hot standby and low power generation) only under speciifiied conditions which prevent the turbine, Itself, from operating.

Title 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.92 contains standards for determining whether a proposed license amendment involves significant hazards considerations. In this regard, the proposed changes to the TS does not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previo'usly analyzed. The TOPMPT encompasses all of the surveillance requirements ofSection 4.3.4.2 and also provides for additional turbine overspeed protection system related tests and high and low pressure turbine rotor inspections. Since the intent of this change is to ensure the reliabilityof the overall Turbine Overspeed Protection System, (i.e.,

channel calibration and testing of related components), there is no adverse impact on any design basis accident.

This program would also provide the necessary assurance that the probability of turbine generated missiles willremain at or below the NRC criteria, eliminating the need for considering turbine missiles in desig'n basis analysis. In addition. the proposed change to TS 8.5.1.8(f),

requiring PORC oversight of the TOPMPT provides reasonable assurance that changes to the TOPMPT willnot adversely affect the program.

Withregard to the proposed inoperability of the Turbine Overspeed Protection System during Modes 2 and 3, the probability of turbine failure would not increase since the turbine cannot be operated under the proposed restrictions,

2. Create the possibility ofa new or different kind ofaccident from any, previously analyzed. Since there are no changes in the way the plant is operated, the potential for an unanalyzed accident is not created. No new failure modes are introduced.

3. Involve a significant reduction In a margin ofsafety. The proposed replacement of the Section S/4.S.4.2 turbine overspeed protection surveillance reqidrements with a newly developed comprehensive maintenance and testing program does not introduce any adverse impacts. Since the proposed changes also do not affect the consequences ofany accident previously analyzed. there is no reduction in the margin of safety.

Accordingly, the staff has made a proposed determination that the application for amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.

LocalPublic Document Room location: Waterford Public Library, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut 06385.

Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Garfield, Esquire, Day, Berry 8 Howard, One Constitution Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499.

NRCProject Director: John F. Stoiz Northern States Power Company, Docket No, 50-283;Monticelio Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Mhnesota Date ofamendment requestt March 7, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed license amendment would revise the existing Technical Specifications to permit the use of up to two alternates in meeting the quorum requirements for the plant Operations Committee. The plant Operations Committee consists of at least six members drawn from the key supervisors of the On-Site Supervisory Staff whose responsibilities Include the review of (1) modifications to plant systems or components described In the Updated Safety Analysis Report, (2) changes to normal and emergency operating procedures, (3) proposed Technical Specification changes, and (4) the results ofTechnical Specification violation investigations.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1989 / Notices standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR M.92(c)), and has also published certain examples for making such determinations (51 FR 7761). One of the examples published Is "(i)A purely administrative change to the technical specifications: for example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the technical specifications, correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature."

The licensee has evaluated the proposed Technical Specification changes against the standards and examples provided by the Commission and has concluded that the changes are

'purely administrative. The Commission's staff has reviewed the licensee's evaluation and agrees that the changes are administrative in nature.

The changes willupgrade the existing Technical Specifications to make them consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications developed for General Electric boiling water reactors which (1) allows the use of alternates for regular Operations Committee members in meeting committee quorum requirements, thereby, reducing "the heavy time demands placed on Operations Committee regular members, and (2) provides for a reasonable degree offlexibilityin the day-to-day business ofplant operational activities which will not'compromise safety.

Local Public Document Boom location: Minneapolis Public Library, Technology and Science Department.

~

300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis,'innesota S5401.

Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Charnoff, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street. NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

NBCProject Director: Theodore R.

Quay, Acting.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. M-276 and 6M23, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos, 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, CaBfornia Dates ofamendment request:

December 19, 1988 and March 23, 1989 (Reference LAR88-10).

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendments'would revise the combined Technical Specifications (TS) for the Diablo Canyon Pow'er Plant (DCPP) Unit Nos. 1 and 2 to incorporate the undervoltage trip and shunt trip attachments testing recommended by WCAP-11312, "Reactor Trip Breaker Maintenance/Surveillance Optimization Program," for compliance with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 85-

09. These operability and testing requirements are based on the NRC staffs evaluation of the Westinghouse generic design modifications for the reactor trip system using shunt coil trip attachments. In its evaluation the staff concluded that Independent testin'g of the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments during power operation and independent testing of the control room manual switch contacts during each refueling outage are necessary to insure reliable trip breaker operation.

Specifically, the followingTS changes are proposed:

1. Action Statement 12 would be added to TS Table 3.3-1 to provide for a 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> allowed outage time after one of the diverse reactor trip features (Undervoltage or Shunt Trip Attachment) has been declared inoperable in either Mode 1 or 2. Ifthe inoperable trip feature is not restored to operable status within48 hours, Action Statement 10 would apply.

2. Table Notation15 ofTSTable4.3-1 would be added to require that the trip actuating device operational test on the Manual Reactor Trip independently verify the operability of the.

Undervoltage Trip and Shunt Trip circuits.

3. Notation 11 ofTS Table 4.3-1 would be revised to indicate that each trip actuating device operational test of the reactor trip breakers shall separately verify the operability of the Undervoltage Trip and Shunt Trip Attachments.

4. The Reactor Trip Bypass Breaker would be added to TS Table'4.3-1

'ncluding the associated Notation 18, which requires a local manual shunt trip test prior to placing the breaker in service, and Notation 17. which requires testing of the automatic undervoltage trip.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

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

The licensee, In its subndttal of December 19, 1988, evaluated the proposed changes against the significant hazards criteria of10 CFR S0.92 and against the Commission guidance concerning application of+Is standard..

Based on the evaluation given below, the licensee has concluded that the proposed changes do not Involve a siydficant hazards consideration. The licensee's evaluation is as follows:

a. Does the change Involve a significant increase In the probability or consequences of an accident previously evatuated't Addition of the operability end surveillance requirements for the Undervoliage Trip and Shunt Trip Attachments constttute e set of requirements more restrtctive than presently Induded in the technical specIIIcatlons and willresult in an increase in the reliabilityof the reactor trip breaker and the reactor trip system.

Therefore, the proposed amendment to add operability and surveillance requirements for the Undeivoltege Trip and Shunt Trip Attachments does not involve a stgnificant increase In the probability of an acddent prevtously evaluated.

b. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Testing of the Undervoltage Titp and Shunt Trip Attachments willnot result tn any new or previously unevalusted plant coidtguretlonL Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibiltty of a new or different kind of acddent from any accident previously evaluated.

c. Does the change involve a'signIIIcant-reduction In the margtn ofsafety?

Addition of the operability and surveillance requirements for the Undervoltsge Trip snd Shurit Trip Attachments help ensure the functioning of the reactor trip eysiem when aeeded and will result In an increase in the reliabfiiiyof the reactor trip breaker end the reactor trip system. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a signlitcant reductton In a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's no siydficanthazards consideration determination. The staff has concluded that the proposed TS changes constitute additional restrictions on plant operation that will result in increased plant reliability.

Therefore, the staff agrees with the conclusion of the licensee's determination. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that these changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

LocalPublic Document Boom location: California Polytechnic State University Library, Government Documents and Maps Department, San Luis Obispo. California 93407.

Attorneys forlicensee: Richard R.

Locke, EsqPa'cific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box /442, San Francisco, California 94120 and Bruce Norton, Esq.,

c/o Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.

NBCProject Director: George W.

Knighton

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1()89 / NotIces Pennsylvaiiia Power and Light Company, Docket No. QM87, Susquehamsa Steam Electr(c Statha, Unit 1, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Date ofamendment request: February 24, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would change the SSES; Unit 1 Technical Specifications to permit residual heat

'emoval (RHR) system modification which eliminates the steam condensing mode of RHR operation. The licensee had previously requested and the Commission approved a similar request for S SES, Unit 2 in Amendment No. 49, dated May 24, 1988.

Basis forpmpased no significant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether.a significant hazards consideration'exists (10 CFR 5L92(c)). Aproposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan acddent previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind ofacddent from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's request and concurs with the following basis and conclusion provided by the licensee in its submittal.

L The proposed changes do not involve a significant Increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated...

~ the containment isolation function is not adversely impacted by this changa This conciusion ts based upon (ihe fact that the) containment isolation and integrity are ensured by the F011 A/Bvalves mooing existing regulatory criteria and because no increase to the allowable leakage i(mits is being proposed.

The removal of the F011 A/Band F028 A/

8 valves from Table 3.8.4.2.1-1 is due to the fact that they are no longer motor-operated and therefore do not have to have thermal overload protection.

Ailpertinent sections ofFSAR Chapter 15 were reviewed in support of this evaluation.

Based on the above, neither the probability nor the consequences of any previous analysis (are) affected by the proposed change.

li.Tha proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

Since the power from the F011 A/Baad FOBS A/Bvalves is removed and the leakage requirements forcoiitainment integrity and isolation do not change, no new concerns are created by this proposal. (Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the posaibQity af a new oc different kind of accident from any previously evaluated).

IIL 'Ihe proposed changes do not involve a slgidficant reduction hi a margin of sately.

Since the contatmnent isolation and integiity are assured to the same relevant crtteda as discussed previously, the overall safety margin has not been slgniGcaatly reduced due to the proposed changes.

Based on the above considerations, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed changes involve no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Osterhout Free Library.

Reference Department, F1 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Bane.

Pennsylvania 18701 Attorneyforlicensee: 3ay Silberg.

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

Washington, DC 2003?'RC Project Director: Walter R.

Butler Power Authority of the State of New York, Docket No. 50-333, lames A.

FitzPatrick Nudear Power Plant, Oswego, New York Date ofamendment request: October 13, 1887, as supplemented March 31,

1989, Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would delete e Technical Specification (TS) surveillance test of the scram discharge system which requires that a manual scram of the reactor be performed from a control rod configuration of less than or equal to 50% rod density once each operating cyde, This test was intended to verify the operability of the scram discharge system. However, it is felt that other surveillance requirements which are present in the TS which do not involve a scram, are already in effect which adequately demonstrate this operability. Additionally, the licensee has committed to performing an evaluation of the operation of the scram discharge volume prior to restart, should a scram occur. This proposed change, therefore, willreduce the number of unnecessary challenges to the reactor protection system and the resulting transient. Other proposed changes are made to correct typographical errors which exist on the same page.

Specificaily, the proposed change would delete Spedfication 4.3%2.g so that a scram at 50% control rod density would no longer be required. When any scram occurs, the scram discharge piping and the instrument volume vent and'drain valves automatically shut ta isolate the system from the reactor building environs. The piping and instrument volume 1hen receive the water discharged from the control rod drives as they force the control rods into the core.

A scram dkscharge system modification was Instafied some years ago to ensure the adequacy ofthis system and a post+atallation test was performed at that thne which proved the adequacy ofthe design. Since no unexpected changes can be expected which affect this design. repeated tests of the adequacy ofthe system by manual scram are not necessary. Other TS requirements (namely. Specifications 4.3.A.2.b, 4.3.A.2.f, 4.3.C.3, Table 4.1-1, end Table 4.1-2) adequately ensure the continued operability of the scram discharge system. Therefore, no decrease in testing which is designed to ensure the availability and operabfiity of the scram discharge system results from deleting the 50% rod density scram test requirement. Also, the proposed change is consistent with the testing requirements ofmost BWR plants and with the Standard Technical Specifications.

The proposed administrative changes would (1) relocate Spedfication 3.3.A.2.e which is located on page 89a to the right-hand column of the page so that it becomes 4.LA2.e. (2) replace the colon in the second sentence of the new Specification 4.3.%2.e with a comma and add "a" after the comma, and (3) remove the period from the end of Specification 3;3A.2.d. combine it with its continuation. which is on page 90, and place th'e entire bpecification onto page 89a.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideratian determinationr The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a'ignificant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance with a proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an acpident previously evaluated: or (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any acddent previously evaluated; or (3)

Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The licensee has eva}uated the proposed amendment against the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 and the licensee's findings are summarized J

below:

Operation in accordance with the proposed Amendment would not involve a significant hazards consideration as stated in 10 CFR 50.92 since it would

'ot:

Federal Re+ter / Vol. 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April.19, 1989 / Notices

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated. The-removal of this surveillance requirement does not affect any accident as analyzed in the FSAR. Other surveillance requirements exist in the Technical Specifications which ensure the operability ofthe scram discharge system to perform as required during a reactor protection system actuation.

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The elimination of an unnecessary surveillance requirement and challenge to the reactor protection system cannot initiate or contribute to a new or different accident.

3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. This surveillance requirement was intended to demonstrate operability of the scram discharge system which is assumed in the FSAR accident analyses. Removal of h surveillance has no effect on these analyses since the design of the modified system together with other Technical Specification surveillance requirements assure the operability of the scram discharge system. The resulting elimination of an unnecessary challenge to the reactor protection system is consistent with industry and regulatory philosophy and goals.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination. Based on the 'review and the above discussion, the staff proposes to determine that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

~

Local Public Document Room location: State University ofNew York, Penfield Library, Reference and Documents Department, Oswego. New York 13126.

Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. Charles M.

Pratt, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York 10019.

NRC Prol'ect Director: Robert A.

Cap'ra Power Authority of the State ofNew York, Docket No, 5M3S, James A.

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego, New York Dale ofomendment request: May 27.

1988 Description ofomendment request:

The proposed amendment would correct various minor Technical Specification (TS) problems which have been discovered as a result ofvarious reviews by correcting typographical and grammatical errors and removing unnecessary pages. Also, other minor changes are incorporated for corsistency of terminology and agreement with previous amendment changes which have been issued but which can be better addressed by the changes shown herein, Allchanges are administrative in nature and improve the clarity of the TS.

SpeciTically, the proposed changes (listed by TS page number) would: (i) add "Specification 3.0" and its title "General" to the Table of Contents and change the page number for Specification 3.1 to "30f."The actual TS changes were issued as Amendment No.

83; (vi) add Tables 4.6-2, 3.12-1, 3.12-2, 3.12-3, 4.12-1, 4.12-2 and 4.12-3 and their titles to the ListofTables. The first table was added to the TS as Amendment No.

28 and the rest by Amendment No. 34 but were not added to the List ofTables at that time; (vii)update the List of Figures by adding a symbol to the title for Figure 3.1-2 and adding the specification number to the title for Figure 3.5-1, deleting Figure 3.5-9 (which was removed from the TS by Amendment No. 109), and adding Figure 3.5-12 (which was incorporated into the TS by Amendment No. 109); (1) correct the spelling of "explicitly"in the first sentence; (2) add'"a" into the first sentence of the definition of Instrument Check to correct the grammatical error, (4) insert Amendment No. "83" at the bottom of the page to reflect that the page was affected by the amendment.

Also, replace trips" with "trip"in the first sentence ofthe definition for startup/hot standby mode; (5) correct the spelling of the abbreviation for "continued" at the top of the page and delete "a" from the Refueling Outage definition; (6) replace "a" with "n" in Specification 1.0.X.a before the word "systems," since n means number of systems. Also, place the n in the last line of the specification inside quotation marks; (8) replace "less than" with "less than or equal to" for core flowin Specification 1.1.B; (29) correct the spelling of "resulting" in Specification

'.2 and 2.2 Bases; (30b) correct the spelling of "inoperable" in Specification S.O.E Bases; (34) rewrite the top paragraph, right column (3.1 Bases), to more clearly describe the nuclear

'nstrumentation coverage for the designated modes of operation; (38) insert "44" into the Amendment Number list to show that the page was changed by this amendment; (41) indicate in Table 3.1-1 with an "X"that the manual scram trip function must be operable in the Run mode. Amendment No. 98 inadvertently deleted this indication when the amendment request was submitted and issued: (41b) add two Less Than Symbols to Table 3.1-1, one before and one after "P," for the turbine control valve fast closure trip"setting.

They were not included in an earlier revision to the page; (42) add a Less Than or Equal To Symbol to Table 3.1-1 for the setpoint ofthe 10% valve closure trip level setting and add "is less than" to Note 3 ahead of "1005." These were omitted from an earlier revision; (57) correct Bve grammatical errors (replace "drop" with "drops" in the second paragraph, remove "this" from the fourth paragraph, replace "of"with "or" in the fourth paragraph, replace "setting" with "settings" in'the Bfth paragraph, and replace "and" with "or" in the fifthparagraph before the "40"),

and delete "flow"from the sixth paragraph to indicate that the reactor water cleanup trip instrumentation is independent of flow; (58) correct the spelling of"channel" in the ninth paragraph; (61) insert a "t"after the "2" in the mathematical equation for the optimum interval between tests; (68) insert '"MISITEMINTENTIONALLY BLANK"for. Item 10 in Table 3.2-2. This should have been included in the submittal for Amendment No. 84; (70a) replace "paid" with "dp" in Item 28 of Table 3.2-2 for the Trip Level Setting to more correctly identify the expression.

Also, insert 'THIS ITEM INIEN'HONALLYBLANK"for Items 22, 23 and 24. These should have been included in the submittal for Amendment No, 48; (70b) insert "dp" in Item 31 to Table 3.2-2 for the trip level settingfor the HPCI turbine steam line high flowtrip function; (76c) correct the spelling of"permissible" in Note 13; (77) correct the symbol for the reactor water level instrument setting by replacing the Greeter Than Symbol with a Greater Than Or Equal To symbol; (89a and 90) rearrange the information so that the appropriate paragraphs fallunder the appropriate specification (4,3%.2.e will reside in the right side column and S.SA.2.d willcontinue with the text on the next page); (91) replace "rods" with "rod" in Specification 3.3.B,1; (101) delete "feedwater from" in the fourth complete sentence of the Brat paragraph in the right column, since rod worth minimizer automatic cutout fs determined by steam flowonly-not feedwater flow; (106) insert "B"for the paragraph number to identify Specification S.4.B; (114) add the change bars which should have been indicated from Amendment No. 95; (115a)delete "of3700 gpm" from 4.5,B,1 which should have been removed in the submittal for Amendment No. 71 since itpertained to the emergency service water pump surveillance requirement. Also, the test criteria is given. in the referenced TS section; (118) correct the paragraph referenced from 3.5.C to SS.C.1 in

Federa( Re@ster / VoL 54. No. 74 / %wednesday, April 19, 1989 / Notices Specificathii LRC,1 Ix (119) replace "relief/sai'ety" with"safety/relief'n four phices for consistency of terminology; (122) identify the specificatioa by inserting "F'o designate Spedfication ASS; (123) insert

"at" to grammatically correct the fourth sentence ofSpedfication 3534; (142a) delete the "effective" date note since it is no longer needed; (142b) delete the text on the page since it is no longer needed and insert 'This page intentionally blank" (143) change Specification "3$.B.1" to "3ALE.1"aad Specification "333.B2" to "3.LE.2" in Specification 3.LE3 to correct the refereace, Also, delete the "effective" date aote since it is no longer needed

(143a 5 b) delete the text on the pages since itis no longer needed and insert

'This page is intentionally blank" (144) replace "operable" with "inoperable" in the second sentence under Spedfication 3.6.G to correct a typo error and correct the meaning of the spedfication; (152) delete "coinddent high drywell pressure and" from the second sentence ofthe second paragraph since a plant modification F143434 removed the high drywell pressure permissive for ADS actuation from the ADS logic. It was reQected in other TS pages in Amendment No. 84 but this page change was Inadvertently omitted from the submittal. Also, in the same paragraph, replace "low-low"with "low-low-low" to correct an error which has existed since the initialTS was issued. Also, replace "relief/safety" with"safety/

relief" in five places for terminology consistency; (153) insert "less than or equal to" before 212' at the top of the page for darification. Also, correct the spelling of "will"la the fourth paragraph of the Bases for Specification 3.6Z; (171) correct the referenced table from 3.7-1 to 4.7-2 in Spedfication 4,7.A.2.c.(1); (172) correct the referenced table from 3.7.2 to 4.7-2 in Spedfication 4.7%2.c.(4); (174) add "40" at the bottom of the page as an Amendment Number since this amendment affected this page. Also, correct a grammatical error by repladng "on" with "oi"in the fourth sentence of Specification 4.7A&f;(177) insert "less than or equal to" ahead of "0.5" in Specification 3.7A.4.a; (178) replace

'The" with "When" in the first line of Specification 3.M.S.a to correct a grammatical error; (179) replace "chamberreactor building" with "chamber/drywell" for terminology consistency; (188) move the comma after "trip"and insert it after "level" to correct a grammatical error in Specification 4.7L).1.c.(2); (194) replace "AEC"with "Commission" in two

'places in the forth fullparagraph. Also, reposition the comma from before "(16)"

to after "(18)" in the same paragrapla (201) correct the drywell TIP purge penetration number from X45B to X45E in two places; (211, 21? 213) correct the table number Irom "3.7-2" to "4.7-2,"

which was incorrectly renumbered in the submittal forAmendment No. 40, to change it back to its original number:

(214) change the third sentence of the first paragraph of Spedfication 3.8 to read: "Ifthe test reveals the presence of 0.005 microcuries or more ofremovable contamination, the source shall be decontaminated, and repaired. or be disposed of in accordance with Commission regulations." for clarification. Also, insert "a" into the third sentence ofSpecification 4.82 before "certificate" to correct a grammatical error; (219) Insert "one" into the first sentence ofSpecification 3.9.C.2.a. before the first "fuel oil."It was inadvertently omitted in the submittal for Amendment No. 83; (226) correct the spelling of "tests" in the Bases for Specification 4.9.F", (238) correct the spelling of "BASES;" (239) replace "3.5J)" with "3.53K'n Specification 3.11.B,1. Also, correct the spelling of "ventilation" in Specification 4.11.C.1; (240) insert "both ESW systems shall be" in the first sentence of Specification 3.11.D.1 for clarity and delete "the" from the first line to correct a grammatical error, (242) replace "3.11.E1" with "4.11.E.1" in'pecification 4.11.E.2 to correct the error; (244a) replace "once/week" with "once/month" for the test frequency specified in Section 4.12.A.1.b to correct an error Introduced when the submittal for Amendment No, 80 was produced.

This change was mistakenly incorporated into the Amendment but was never analyzed by the licensee or the NRC and restores the frequency to that existing prior to Amendment No. 80; (244I) replace table "3.122" with "3,1M" to correct Specification 3.123).1.a and b; (244i) replace table "3.1?.2" with "3.12.3" to correct Specification 3.123) Bases:

and (248) replace "Coordinator" with "Superintendent" in the Qrst paragraph ofSection 6.4 to be consisteat with the organization chart.

Basis forproposed no significant hozards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a sigaificant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. Aproposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves ao significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the fadlity in accordance with a proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability of consequences ofan aoddent previously evaluateiL or (2) Create the possibility of a new or differ'ent ldnd ofaccident from any acddent previously evaluated or (3)

Involve a significant reduction Ia a margin of sal'ety.

The licensee has evaluated the proposed amendment against the standards In 10 CFR 50.92 and the licensees'indings are summarized below:

The proposed changes involve no significant hazards considerations. They are all administrative or editorial in nature and indude typographical errors.

grammatical errors, and clarification of specificationL Operation In accordance with the proposed amendment would not Involve a significant hazards consideration as stated In10 CFR SN2 since itwould not:

1. Involve significant increase in the probability or consequences of an acddent previously evalu'ated. The intent of the proposed changes are to clarify and correct the TS. The changes are administrative and include:

correction ofmisspelled words, deletion of expired pages, and correction of grammatical errors. There are no setpoint changes, safety limitchanges, surveillance requirement changes that were not previously evaluated, or changes to any limitingconditions for operation. These changes have no impact on plant safety or plant operations and willhave no impact on previously evaluated acddents.

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident previously evaluated. The proposed changes are purely administrative in nature and involve only the correction of typographical and similar errors.'Ihese proposed changes are intended to darify and improve the quality of the TS. 'Ihis cannot create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident.

3. Involve a significant reductioa ia the margin ofsafety. The proposed changes correct errors which currently exist in the TS. The changes are aH administrative in nature and willclarify the specifications by eliminating errors such as typographical errorL These changes do not change any setpoints or safety limits regarding isolation or

, alarms. The proposed changes do not affect the environmental monitoring program. These changes do not affect the plant's safety systems and do aot reduce any safety margin.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination. Bas'ed on the review and the above discussion, the staff proposes to determine that the proposed changes

Federal Regurter / Vol 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1M9 f NoUces do not involve a sigrdficant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Roam location: State University ofNew York.

Penfield Library. Reference and Documents Department, Oswego, New York 13128.

Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. Charles M.

Pratt, 10 Columbus Circle, New York New York 10019.

NRC Project Director: Robert A.

Capra Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Docket No. 50-244. RE Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County. New York Date ofamendment request: February 24, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would modify the rod insertion limits for the Cycle 19 fuel reload to ensure that all criteria for the reload are met. Since the change is not applicable to future cycles. itis presented as a change with a limited period ofapplicability.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards cansideratian determinatiaru The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards determination exists as stated in 10 CFR 5092(c). Aproposed emend ment to an operaUng license involves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation oftlie facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluateth or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

The licensee's analyses contained in the February 24. 1989, letter states the foliowintp In accordance with 10 CFR 5L91. these changes to the Technical Spectficatlous have been evaluated to determine tlthe operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment woulik

1. involve a signfiicant increase in the

'robability or consequences ofan accident prevtousiy evaluated; or

z. create the possibility of a new or different khd of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or

3. involve a stgnlficant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

The proposed change would require the bank D control rods to be withdrawn 5 steps further during fullpower operation.

Withdrawtug the rods above the InserUon Itmtt increases the shutdown margin, decreases the ejected rod worth. reduces power peaking, and does not alter stuck rod worth. Therefore. withdrawiag the rods is conservaUve and ensures that ths safety criteria'for the Cycle 19 reload are met, there Is no sigutficaut increase in the probability or cousequences ol au accident previously evaluated. Enauring the criteria are met does not create the poeetbtlity of a new or ddfarent kind olaccident or result tn a reductiou tn a margin of safety.

Therefore. Rochester Gas and Electric submits that the Issues associated with thh amendment request are outside tbe criteria of 10CHI5041 and a no signiftcaat hazards finding is warranted.

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standard in 10 CFR 50.92 for determining whether a significant hazards consideraUon existtt by providing certain examples of amendments that willlikelybe found to involve no significant hazards considerations. The changes to the Technical SpecificaUons proposed in this amendment request to the Technical Specifications proposed in this amendment request are similar to NRC example (iv). Example (iv) relates to the granting ofa relief from an operating restriction upon demonstration of acceptable means of operation. This assumes that acceptable operating criteria have been established and that it is satisfactorily shown that the criteria have been met.

Based on this guidance and the reasons discussed above, the licensee has concluded that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideraUon. The Commission agrees with this conclusion.

LocalPublic Document Boom location: Rochester Public Library, 115 South Avenue, Rochester, New York 14610.

Attorneyforlicensee: Harry Voigt, Le BoeufLamb, Leiby and McRae, Suite 1100, 1133 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 200M.

NRC Project Director: Richard H.

Wessman Sacramento Municipal UUIItyDistrict, Docket No. 6M12, Rancho Seco Nuclear GeneraUng Station, Sacramento County, California Date ofamendment request: October 7, 1988 as'supplemented November 18, 1988 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TS) 3.4 and 4.8. The changes proposed to TS 3.4 would clarify the operational mode applicability ofthat specification and the deffniUon ofAmdliaryFeedwater (AFW) train. The references to "SFW" (Startup Feedwater) would be changed

. in Specification 3.4 to reflect the fact that the startup valves are part oftbe Main Feedwater (MFW) System.

The proposed amendment would delete the words "to the condenser" from TS 48.1 to reflect alternate recircehtioo Qovrpeths avaBabIe for AFW pump teeing and change the reactor coahmt systenr average temperature above which the AFW system is to be teated fromgreater than or equal to 305 datpieea Faiirenheit to greater Uian or equal to 288 degrees Fahrenheit.

The proposed amendment would also revise the surveillance requirements and frequency ofverifyingthe flowpath of the AFWSystem.

Basis forproposed na sigruficant hazards consideration detenninatian:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 5082. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideraUons ifoperation ofthe facility in accordance witha proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously-evaluattMh (2) Create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3)

Involve a signtficant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

The proposed amendment does not:

(1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because,

'ased on licensee's evaluation. the proposed changes are clarifications that should more clearly define the operating modes and addiUonal jhnitations that increase the range in whish the AFW system is to be tested: additionally, the proposed changes to TS 4b should continue to ensure proper operation of the AFW system Qow paths and existing adntinistrative controls provide

'dditional assurance ofproper Qow paths operation; (2) create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident freon any actddent previously evaluated because the funcUon of the AFW System wfllnot be changed and the. operability of the system and its ability to perform its intended hmcUon willbe maintained', (3) involve a significant reducUon in a maighr of safety because adequate administrative controls willbe maintained to ensure the proper operation of tbe AFW System flowpaths.

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

Local Public Document Room locatiom Martin Luther'ing Regional Library, 7340 24th Street Bypass.

Sacramento, CaMornia 95822 Attorneyforlicensee: David S..

Kaplan, SacranM:nto Municipal Utility

T0838 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1989 / Notices District, 6201 S Street, P.O. Box 15830, Sacramento, California 95813 lVRCPro/ect Dire'ctotr George W, Knighton Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No, M-260, Browne Ferry Nuclear Plant, Un)t 2,'Lhnestone County. Alabama Date ofamendment request: February 24, 1989 (TS 283)

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment corrects Browne Ferry Unit 2 (BFN2), Technical Specifications Tables 4.1$, 4.2.B, and 4.2.F forcalibration frequencies. The amendment also Includes administrative changes to instrument numbers, an'd deletes instrument checks forfour instrument channels.

Setpoint and sca)ing calculations for various instrument loops that contain transmitters manufactured by Tobar, Inc. require changing the calibration'requency to once every 6 months. Three loops at BFN2 are affected. Two of the loops have calibration frequencies of once every 18 months. One loop has a calibration frequency ofonce every 12 months. The proposed change would require calibration frequencies of once every 6 months for each of the three loops.

Changes to instrument numbers for ten instruments in Tables 3.2.B and 4,2.B are proposed. These changes are administrative in nature and do not change the function, setting or calibration interval ofany of the ten instruments. The instrument numbers are included in the technical specifications for completeness.

Instrument checks for four instrument channels in Table 4.2% that have no remote or local indications willalso be deleted by the proposed amendment, Basis forproposed no significant hazards considerotion determination:

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 that at the time a licensee requests an amendment, it must provide to the Commission its analyses, using the standards in Section 50.92, on the issue ofno signiTicant hazards consideration. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 60.91 and 10 CFR 50.92, the licensee has performed and provided the followinganalysis:

NRC haa provided ataadarda for.

deteriahlag whether a aigaificaat hazards conaideratloa exiata as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A propoaed ameadmeat to an operating license involves no significant hazards coaaideratloaa Ifoperation of the facflityia accordance with the proposed amendment would aot (1) involve a sigaificaat hcreaae ia the probability or consequences of ea accident previoualy evaluated, (2) create the possibility of a new or differeat kind ofacddaat from an acddeat previously evaluated. or (3) hvolve a aigaiiicant reduction ia a margin of safety.-

1, 'Ihe proposed aaieadmeat does aot Involve a significan increase In the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated. The primary factor ia setting the calibration intervale ia the driftof the treaataittera aad trip units. TVAhaa perfonaed aetpoiat scaling caicuiatioaa that support the proposed cheage uaiag manufacturers recomaieaded Intervals aad hduatry standard practlcea. This change does aot Involve a deaiga change or physical change to the plant. The revised surveillance frequeadea willaot affect the consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

The reliabilityof the HPCI/RCIC diaphraya high pressure, steam line flowaad steam supply pressure hatruiaeata are adequately assured by the performance of fuactioaal tests every 31 days.

Clarlflcatioaa or correctioaa of typographical errors are edmhiatrative changes which improve technical apecification reliabilitysad therefore can have ao detrimental impact.

2. The proposed change does aot create the possibility of a new or different kiad of acddeat from any acddeat previously evaluated because chaagiag the technical apeclficatioaa to reflect different calibration frequeadea does aot affect or change design operating limits or protective aetpohta. No new or different modes of operation are allowed by these changes.

3. The proposed change does aot involve a sigaificaat reduction ia a margin of safety because h no Instance willthese changes affect the technical spedficatioa safety limits.These changes have ao affect on the instrument aetpoiata. Allparameters will continue to be monitored aa currently required.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration

'etermination and agrees with the, licensee's analyses. Therefore, the staff proposes to determine that the application for amendments involves no significant hazards considerations.

LocalPublic Document Room locotion: Athens Public Library, South Street, Athens, Alabama 36811.

Attorneyforlicensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit HillDrive, E11 B33, Knoxville,Tennessee 37902.

NRCAssistant Director: Suzanne Black Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket.

Nos.60-327 and 6M28, Sequoyah Nuc)ear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Date ofamendment requests: March 27, 1989 (TS 88-27)

Description ofamendment requests:

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

'roposes to modify the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed changes are to revise surveillance requirement (SR) 4.64.6.a.1 by increashg the base current value from 28 amperes to 32 amperes for the containment air return fan (CARF) motors.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

TVAprovided the followinginformation in its application to support the proposed changes:

Review of the past perfonnance data of Surveillance Instruction (SI) 28, "Containment AirReturn Fane." haa shown that the amperage window of 28 277$

amperea Ia too low. Amperage values obtained have coaatateatly remahed on the upper cad ofthe allowed tolerance value aad thereby indicate the need for an increase Ia the base amperage value. This surveillance amperage value should be increased to a value of 32 277.5 amperea to establish a new data baaeliae that willbe used to verify the motor operability ofthe CARFa.

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 that at the time a licensee requests an amendment, it must provide, to the Commission its analyses, using the standards in Section 50.92, on the issue ofno significant hazards consideration. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 10 CFR 60.92, the licensee has performed and provided the followinganalysis:

TVAhaa evaluated the proposed technical apedficatlon change aad haa determhed that it does aot repreaeat a algaificaat hazards coaaideratioa based on criteria established Ia 10 CFR 50.92(c). Operation ofSQN ia accordance with the proposed amendment willaot:

(1) Involve a significant Increase Ia the probability or consequences ofan acc/dent previously evaluated. As stated ia the SQN FSAR. section 8.8.1. the primary purpose of the CARFa is to enhance the ice condenser sad containment spray heat removal operation by drculatiag air from the upper compartment to the lower compartment, though the Ice condenser. aad then back to the upper compartment. The secondary purpose of the system ia to limithydrogen coaceatration'h poteatially stagnant regions by ensuring a flowof air to these regioaa.

Therefore, Iacreaahg the base amperage from 28 to 32 amperea wiiiaot affect.the system'a function as previously evaluated. This change wIIIenhance the ability to verify the CARP motor operability by eatabliahhg a more realistic data baaelhe as a result of actual plant test data. Therefore, the proposed change does aot hvolye an Increase Ia the probability or consequences ofan acddent prevloualy evaluated because the ayateia'a operation aad function are aot affected.

(2) Create the poaaibility ofa new or dlffereat kind of acddent from any previously analyze* hcreaahg the base amperage In the amperage window of the CARF motors willnot create the poaaibIIIty ot

Feheal Reg}stag / Vok 54. No yh / Wcchtgsday, April 1@ 19IS / ROQcee

$5889 a new or dlfiereut kfnd ofaccident then prevtously auaiyxed. System operaUon and function are not affected by this change. As previously stated, this change Is being made to establish e more reeiistfc date baseline for future survedlence tesUng. Therefore. the proposed change does not create the possibility ofa new or dtffereut khd of accident from any previously eueiyxed because the system's opereUoa end funcdoa ere not affected by the change.

{3) Involve a stgnificent reducdon In a margin ofsafety. This change willnot involve a siguificent reduction In a safety margin of the CARP system. Tbe amperage window Is solely used to verffyCARP motor operabfiity and to allow forvartathms In board voltage due to changes In board loading. Netther system opezeUon nor function willbe affected by this change because Itonly establishes a more reafisUc data baseline for motor reliability,'IIierefore. no reducUon In a margin ofsafety Is tnvolved by the proposed change because'the system's operation and function are not affected by the change.

The staff has revfewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis. Therefore. the staff proposes to determine that the appfication for amendments involves no significant hazards considerations.

Local Public Document Room locationi Chattanooga-Hamilton County Library, 1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402.

Attorneyforlicensee: General CounseL Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit HillDrive. E11 B33, Knoxville,Tennessee 37902.

NRC Assistant Director: Suzanne Black Toledo Edison Company. and Tho Cleveland Electric HlumfnaUng Company, Dockot No. 6M48, Davis-Besse Nudear Power StaUon, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio Date ofapplication foramendment:

August 6. 1987 Description ofamendment request:

The amendment would delete in its entirety A'ppendix B to the Operating License, "Environmental Technical Specifications," The amendment would also delete that portion of the License Condition 2.F.(1) which referred to the Environmental Technical SpeciTicaUons.

Appendix B originally consisted of two typos of spedfications when issued, one related to radiological effiuents and the other related to non-radiological environmental matters. Prior to this request, the NRC staff issued Amendment 88 (July 2. 1985) which incorporated more comprehensive Tech~ical SpedficaUons on radiological effluents into Appendix Aof the Operating License and deleted these requirements from Appendix B of the Operating License.

Tha second type ofspecificatfcms originally contained in Appendix B involve manitosing and reporting requirements assoda ted with nonradfological environmental matters such as aquatic and land management AquaUc monitoring requirements were previously deleted from Appendix B by License Amendment 55 (March 11. 1983),

Basis forproposed no sigiiificant haxaiuts consideration determmatiom The Commission has pmvided standards for detennizdng whether a significant hazards consideration exists in 10 CFR 50AEh Aproposed amendment to an operating license involves no signiTicant haxards consideration if operation of the facQity in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan acddent previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any acddent previbusly evaluated; or (3) fnvolve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

With respect to each of these three criteria, the licensee has provided an analysis ofno significant hazards consideration in its request for a hcense amendment as follow@.

(2) Involve a sfydficent bicrease In the probabtifty or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change Is adadnfstraUve end willnot affect the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Further. shee the radiological effleeut nionitoifngrequlreiuents have been incorporated into Appendix A, the ability to monitor, detect end control redioecUve discharges from the plant remains unchanged.

{2) Create the possibility of a new or.

different khd of ecddent from any previously evaluated.

TIie proposed change does not affect any of the assumpUons used Iu previous accfdent evaluaUons; all accidents amUnue to be bounded by previous analysts. Accordtugfy, deletion ofthese envfronmental tectudcaf specifications which have been previously seUsfied willnot introduce the posstbility of any new or different kind o!accident.

Further, the plant willconthiuc to operate In the same manner as previously, thereby

. ensuring that no new or different khd of accident can occur.

{3)Involve a siydficant reduction In e margin ofsafety.

Tbe proposed deletion ofAppendix B and

, the defeUon of that portion ofLIcense Condt tion 2.P.{1) which refers to Appendix B involves no reducUon In a'margtn ofsafety since tbe requfreioents formonttozfeg.

detection and control of radfologtcaf effiuents conUnues unchanged fu Appendix A.

Based on the above considerations, the staff proposes to determine that the proposed dala Uon ofAppendix B from the OperaUng License and the deletion of a portion ofLicense Condition 2.F.(1).

does not involve a afgafficasf haxdzdd cansfderatfosz.

Local Public Dansant Room locatiaiL University otToledo Library, Documents Bepertsoetzf, 2IMI1Baseroft Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 4380L Attorneyforliverish Gera)d Charnoff, Esquire. Shaw. Pfttzaan, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

NRCPmject Director: John N. Hannon Washington Public Power Supply System, Docket No. QM97, Nudoar Project No. 2, Bonton County, Washington Date ofamenlznent reqaest February

10. 1987 and March 3I. 198L Description ofamendment mpvest:

License Condition 2C.(14) pertaining to the WNP-2 fire protection requirements would be modified to incozporate a standard fire protection license condition recommended by the staff In Generic Letter 88-1L The following Technical Spedfications governing fire protection are proposed to be removed 3/44 M, "Fire Detection InstrumentaUon" 3/42K "Fire Suppzession Systems" 3/4 7~ "Fire Related Asseblies" 8.2.2.e (Fire Brigade staffing requirements)

Related bases secUons would be modified and the index would be revised to delete the sections removed.

Generic Letters 88-10, dated April24; 1988, and 88-12. dated August 2, 1988, from the NRC provided guidance to licensees concerning removal of the fire protection technical specifications. The licensee's proposed amendment follows these Generic Letters.

Basis forProposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination:

The Commission has provided standards for detenmning whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 5L92. Aproposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards.

considerations ifoperation of the fadffty in accordance with zr proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an acddent previously evaluated: (2) Create the possibility of a new or dfffezezit kind ofacddent fmm any accident pzeviously evaluated: or (3)

Involve a significant reduction In a margin of safety.

The pzoposed revisions to the license condition and ta the technical spedficatiozur are in accordance with the guidance pmvfded in Generic Letter 88-10 for licensees requesUng removal of fire protecUon tedmical speciTicaUons, The incorporation of the NRC-approved

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1889 / Notices fire protection program, and the former technical specification requirements by reference to the procedures implementing these requirements, into the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and the use ofthe standard license condition on fire protection willensure that the fire protection program, including the systems, the administrative and technical controls, the organization, and the other plant features associated with fire protection willbe on'a consistent status with other plant features described in the FSAR.

The provisions of10 CFR M.59 would then apply to changes the licensee considers maldng in the fire protection program. In this context the determination ofthe involvement ofan unreviewed safety question defined in 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) would be made based on the "accident...previously evaluated" being the postulated fire in the fire hazards analysis for the area affected by the change. Hence the proposed license condition would establish an adequate basis for defining the scope of changes to the fire protection program which can be made without prior Commission approval, i.e., without introduction of an unreviewed safety question.

Neither the proposed license condition nor the removal ofthe existing technical specification requirements on fire protection creates the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from those previously evaluated. They also do not involve a significant reduction in

.the margin of safety since the license condition does not alter the requirement that an evaluation be performed for the identification ofan unreviewed safety question for each proposed change in the fire protection protection program.

Consequently. the proposed license condition for the removal ofthe fire protection requirements do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The Administrative Controls section of the technical specifications (Section

8) includes a requirement for fire protection program implementation procedures. This section willalso be modified as necessary'to define the roles of the Plant Operations Committee and the Corporate Nuclear Safety Review Board in reviewing the Are protection program and implementing procedures. The fire protection program willbe subject to administrative controls consistent with other programs addressed by license conditions. These changes are themselves administrative in nature and do nqt impact the operation of the facilityin a manner that involves significant hazards considerations.

The proposed amendment includes the removal of fire protection technical specifications in four areas: (1) fire detection systems, (2) fire suppression

, systems, (3) fire-rated assemblies (fiire barriers), and (4) fire brigade staffing requirements. While it is recognized that a comprehensive fire protection program is essential to plant safety, many details ofthis program that are currently addressed in technical specifications can be modified without affecting nuclear safety. These requirements being removed from the technical specifications have been incorporated into the fire protection implementing procedures. The administrative controls section of the technical specifications ensure that licensee initiated changes to these requirements willreceive careful review by qualified individuals.

The transfer of these items from the technical specifications to a separate fire protection program is believed to be an administrative action which does not impact the operation ofthe facilityin a

.manner that involves significant hazards considerations.

Based on the above considerations the Commission proposes to determine that the requested changes to the WNP-2 License and Technical Specifications involve no sfgnifiicant hazards considerations, Local Public Document Room location: Richland City Library, Swift and Northgate Streets, Richland, Washington 993S2.

Attorneys forlicensees: Nicholas S.

Reynolds, Esq., Bishop, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds, 1400 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20005-3502 and G,E Doupe, Esq., Washington Public Power Supply System, P.O. Box 968, 3000 George Washington Way, Richland, Washington 99352.

NRC Project Director: George W.

Knighton Washington Public Power Supply System, Docket No. 6MÃ,Nuclear Project No. 2, Benton County, Washington Date ofamendment request: February 2, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

Technical Specification Section 3.0.4,:

"LimitingCondition for Operation,"

would be revised to allow mode changes when in an action statement that allows continued operation for an unlimited period of time. Currently such mode changes are prohibited, Technical Specification 4.0.3 would be changed to delay compliance with an action statement for up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in order to allow performance of a missed surveil!ance. Currently the plant must be shutdown ifa,surve0lance interval is inadvertently surpassed.

Technical Specification 4AL4would be changed to allow the plant to proceed through or to required operational modes to comply with Action requirements even though applicable surveillance requirements may not have been performed. Currently Technical Specifications 3.0.4 and 4.0.3 are in conflict when such a procession is necessary to come out of an Action statement. The proposed revision would address the existing conflict.

The amendment would remove the statement, "..the provisions of Specification 3.0.4 are not applicable,"

from the various Chapter 3 Limiting Conditions for Operation which do not require the shutdown since the proposed revision 3.0.4 makes such wording superfluous. The licensee would retain the existing exceptions to 3.0,4 in those specifications that do require a plant shutdown.

Bases associated with these specifications would also be rev!sed.

Basis forProposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facility in accordance with a proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated; (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3)

Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The changes requested are to specifications 3.0.4, 4.0.3 and 4.0.4 and are as recommended by the staff in Generic Letter 8749.

The Supply System has evaluated this amendment request per 10 CFR 50.59 and 50.92 and determined that itdoes not represent an unreviewed safety question or a significant hazard. The proposed amendment does not:

(1) Involve a signifiicant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated because:

The change to Specification 3.0.4 will allow mode changes while the plant is in an Action statement that does not prohibit power operation. Exception to 3.0.4 has already been taken in many of the individual Action statements.

Incorporating the 'proposed change into 3.0.4 willensure that exceptions willbe consistently applied when justified.

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No, 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 19N / Notices Dele'tion of the individual exceptions willhave no impact upon the requirements in the Specifications since the exception to 3.0.4 willnow be contained within 3.0.4.

The change to Specification 4.0.3 will allow delay in the application ofAcUon requirements for up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> when a surveillance has been missed. Because surveillances normally verify system or component operability, as opposed to discovering inoperability, the aHowance of an additional 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to demonstrate operability is not significant. Without the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> delay it fs likelythat a missed surveillance would force a plant

~ shutdown.

Avoidance of this transient state and associated thermal cycling is beneficial and far outweighs any incremental uncertainties regarding system operability associated with the additional 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in which to perform a missed surveillance.

The change to Specification 4.0.4 will not result in a change to the design or operation of'the facilityand Is administrative In nature. For the reasons cited above, this change willnot result in an increase In the probability or consequences ofan accident.

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

The change to 3.0.4 willallow the plant to continue operation In an Action statement that already allows continued operation. As such, no new modes of operaUon are being introduced by this change.

The change to 4.03 would allow the plant to continue operation for an additional 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after discovery of a missed surveillance. Missing a surveillance does not mean that a component or system is inoperable. In most cases surveillances demonstrate the continued operability of the components and systems. Allsystems and components currently required to be verilied operable by Technical Specification requirements willcontfnue to be maintained operable. This change willnot affect the design of the plant and willnot allow the plant to be operated outside the currently allowed modes ofoperation.

The change to 4.0.4 willalleviate a contradiction within the specifIcations.

This change is administrative and does not affect any of the accident analyses.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because:

.'he change to Specification 3.0.4 will allow mode changes in Action statement that do not require plant shutdown, Exceptions to 3.0,4 are already contained withinmany of the applicable Action statements. Incorporating the exceptions within 3.0.4 willensure their consistent application.

The change to 4.0.3 willallow up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to perform a missed surveillance.

In most cases this willeliminate the need for a plant shutdown. The overall effect is a net gain in plant safety due to avoidance ofunnecessary shutdowns du'e to missed surveillances.

The change to 4.0.4 is administrative in nature and therefore does not affect any margin ofsafety.

Based on the above considerations the Commission proposes to determine that the requested changes to the WNP-2 License and Technical Specifications involve no signlficant hazards consideration.

LocalPublic Document Room location: Richland City Library, Swift and Northgate Streets, Richland, Washington 99352.

- Attorneys forlicensees: Nicholas S.

Reynolds, Esq., Bishop, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds, 1400 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 200054502 and G.E Doupe, Esq., Washington Public Power Supply System, P.O. Box 888, 3000 George Washington Way, RIchland, Washington 99352.

NRCProject Director: George W Knfghton Washington Public Power Supply System, Docket No. 5M97, Nuclear Project No. 2, Benton County, Washington Date ofamendment request: Mar'ch 24, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

License condition 2.C.(18), Attachment 2, Item 3(b), Wide Range Neutron Flux Monitor, requires the licensee to implement the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Rev. 2 for flux monitoring prior to startup following the fourth refueling outage.

Basis forProposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. Aproposed amendment to an'operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards considerations ffoperation of the facility in accordance with a proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase fn the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3)

Involve a sfgniiicant reduction in a margin of safety, In making this request the licensee has noted that significant progress has been made toward meeting the requirement prior to startup following the fourth outage. The fourth refueling outage is now scheduled to begfn on April28, 1889. This amendment applicaUon has been submitted to allow restart in the event that requirements of the Regulatory Guide are not met by the end of the outage.

The Supply System has reviewed the requested amendment per 10 CFR S0.59 and 50.92 and has determined that no unreviewed safety questions or significant hazards willresult. Further, the licensee stated that the proposed change willnot: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated because the existing instrumentation consists offour redundant safety-related channels.

Additionally. there are unrelated systems in place to provide operators with sufficient data to assess reactor conditions (e.g., control rod position monitors, reactor vessel level and pressure monitors) in the unlikely event of an accident condition prior to replacement. (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident because no function of the fluxmonitor system is being changed; therefore, no new or different kind ofaccident is conceivable. (3) Involve a sfgnfficant reduction in a safety margh as adequate instrumentation is provided to allow the operator to assess reactor conditions without this monitor in the unlikely event ofan accident condition that could cause the monitor currently in

'lace to failprior to replacement.

Based on the above consfderations the Commission proposes to determine that the requested changes to the WNP-2 Technfcal Specifications involve no sfgnfficant hazards considerations.

Local Public Document Room location: Richland City Library, Swift and Northgate Streets, Richland, Washington 993S2.

Attorneys forlicensees: Nicholas S.

Reynolds, Esq., Bfshop, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds, 1400 L Street, NW Washington. DC 200054502 and G.E Doupe, EsqWashington Public Power Supply System, P.O. Box 968, 3000 George Washington Way, Richland, Washington 99352.

NRC Project Directorr George W.

Knighton PREVIOUSLYPUBLISHED NOTICES OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTSTO OPERATING LICENSES ANDPROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANTHA?JQU) S CONSIDERATIONDEFKMINATION ANDOPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The followingnotices were previously published as separate individual

"~

~

'oderal RelbAer / VoL 54, No. 74 I Wednesday, April 19, IS% / Notfces notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances.

They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration.

For details. see the individual notice in the Federal Register on the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period of the original notice.

Philadelphia Electric Company, Docket No. SM52, LimerickGenerating Station, UnitI, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Date ofamendment request: March 23, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendment request.. This amendment modifies the Technical Specifications to conform to the stafFs tecfuucaf position PSB-I.

"Adequacy ofStation Electric Distribution System Voltages."

Date ofpublication ofindividual noticein Federal Register: March 29, 1989 (54 FR 22978)

Expiration date ofirrdividualnotice:

Comment period expired April13, 1989; Notfce perfod expires April28. 1989.

Local Public Dacumerrt Boom location: Pottstown Public Library, 500 High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.

Philadelphia Electric Company, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Delmaiva Power and LightCompany and Atlantic City Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom AtomicPower Station, UnitNos.

2 and 3, YorkCounty. Pennsylvania Date ofamendment request. March 20, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendment request: This amendment would modify the Technical Specifications to reflect removal of the requirement for calibration of the Source Range Monitor (SRM) and Intermediate Range Monitor (IRM) Detectors Not fn Startup Positfon within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before each startup or controlled shutdown on the basis that the currently existing functional test and preventive maintenance program calibration test is adequate for this instrumentation.

Date ofpublicotion ofindividual noticein Federaf Register: March 21, 1989 (54 FR 11599)

Expiration date ofindividualnotice:

April20, 1989 LocalPublic Document Boom location: Government PuMfcatfons Section. State Library ofPennsylvania, Education Building. Commonwealth <<nd Walnut Streets, Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania 27128.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Docket Nos. 50.266 and 50-301, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, Town ofTwo Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin Date ofapplication foramendments:

hfarch 23, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendments request: The amendments would revise provisions of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Tedmical SpeciTications relating to the permissible enrichments for storage of fuel assemblies in the new fuel storage vault and spent fuel storage pooh Date ofindividualnoticein Federal Register. March 31, 1989 (54 FR 13261)

Expiration dote ofindividualnotice."

Comment period expires April14. 1969, Notice period expires May 1, 1989.

Local Public Documerit Boom location: Joseph P. Mann Library. 1518 Sixteenth Street. Two Rivers.

Wisconsm.

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has fssued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regula ticms in 10 CFR Chapter L which are set forth fn the license amendment.

Notice ofConsideraticm ofIssuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No SigiiiBcant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity forHearfng in connection with these actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated. No request fora hearmg or petition forleave to intervene was Gled following this notice.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 5122. Therefore, pursuant to 20 CFR 5122(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. Ifthe Commission has prepared an envfmnmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment.

ftis so fndfcated.

For further details vrith respect to the action see (I)the applfcatfons for amendments, (2) the amendments, and (3) the Commission's related letters.,

Safety Evaluations and/or Environmental Assessments as indicated. AH of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Bu0ding, 2120 L Street, NN.,

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, Washfngton, DC 20555, Attentfon: Director, Division of Reactor ProJects, Arkansas Power 4 Lfght Cocupany.

Docket No. SWATS, Arkansas Nucfear One, UnitI, Pope Cocinty, Arkansas Date ofamendment request: June 30.

1988 Briefdesert'ptr'on ofamendment; The amendment modified the Technical Specifications by adding surveillance requirements for the automatic actuation of the shunt trip attachments of the reactor trip breakers, and for the silicon controlled rectifier (SCR) trip relays used to interrupt power to the control rods. as required by Generic Letter (GL) 83-28, Items 43 and 4.4. and GL 85-10.

Date ofissiuuice: March 10. 1989 Effective dater March 10. 1989 Amendment No 117 Facility Operating License Na. DPR-

61. Amendment revhed the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register: September 22, 1988 (63 FR 38888) The Commission's rehted evaluation of the amendment fa contained in a Safety Evahiatfon dated March 10. 2989.

No significant iiozards corisidemtion comments receivecb No.

LocalPublic Document Boorrr locatian: Tomlfnson Library, Arkansas Tech University, Russelfvf lie, Arkansas.

72801 Balthnore Gas and EIectric Company, Docket No, 50.$ 18, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, UnitNo. 2, Calvert County, Maryland Date ofopplicatr'on foramendmeritr October 14, 1988 as supplemented February 17, 1989.

Briefdescripti on ofamerrdmentr This amendment provides a temporary, one-time extension, ofup to 54 days, to the surveillance intervaL required by TS

~

Surveillance (TS) Requirement 4.7.8.1.c.

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1989 / Notices for the performance offunctional tests on a representative sample of 10% of each individual type ofsnubber.

This temporary change shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on May 17, 1989 or upon reaching 199.9' average reactor coolant system (RCS) temperature during initialRCS heatup following the Unit 2 Cycle 9 refueling outage, whichever comes first At that point, the speciTied maximum surveillance interval shall revert to the normally required 18-month perio*

In addition, this amendment corrects nomenclature errors in TS 3/4.7.8, "Snubbers," and deletes an obsolete note in TS 4.7.8.1 concerning the date steam generator snubbers were first required to be tested.

Date ofissuance: March 24. 1989 Effective date: March 24, 1989 Amendment No, 119 Facility Operating License No. DPR-6R Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. February 17, 1989 (54 FR 7309)

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluatiori dated March 24. 1989 No significant hazards consideration comments receivedi No Local Public Document Boom location: Calvert County Library, Prince Frederick, Maryland.

NBCProject Director.'obert A.

Capra Carolina Power 8i Light Company, et aL, Docket Nos.60-326 and 6M24, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina Date ofapplication foramendments:

October 28, 1988, as supplemented March 8, 1989 Description ofamendments: The amendment revises the Technical Specifications by modifying footnote

"', in Table 1,2, "Operational Conditions." The revised footnote allows the reactor mode switch to be placed in the Refuel position while a single control rod is being moved, as opposed to only when being recoupled, provided the one-rod-out interlock is operable.

Date ojissuance: March 14, 1989 Effective date: March 14, 1989 Amendment Nos.: 125 and 165 Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPB42, Amendments revise the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register: January 11, 1989 (64 FR 1019)

Additional Information ofa clarifying nature was submitted by the licensee by letter dated March 6, 1989. The additional information did not alter the action noticed and did not effect the staffs proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 14, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments recei ved: No.

Local Public Document Room location: University of North Carolina at Wilmington, WilliamMadison Randall Library, 601 S. College Road.

Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 6M64 and 5M55, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois;Docket Nos. 50858 and 5M57, Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, WillCounty, Illinois Date ofapplication foramendments:

December 12, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendments:

These amendments modify Technical Specifications having cycle-specific Fxy limits by replacing the values of those limits with a reference to the Operating Limits Report for the value of those limits.

'ate ofissuance: March 28, 1989 Effective date: March 28, 1989 Amendment Nos.: 28 forByron, 15 for Braidwood Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37, NPF-N, NPF-72, and NPF-7S The amendments revised the Technical Specification, Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register, February 22, 1989 (54 FR 7628)

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments receivedi No.

Local Public Document Room location: For Byron Station, Rockford Public Library, 216 N, Wyman Street, Rockford, Illinois81101; for Braidwood Station, the Wilmington Township Public Library, 201 S. Kankakee Street, Wilmington, Illinois60481.

Duke Power Company, Docket No,I-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Date ofapplication foramendment:

December 7, 1985 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment deleted license condition 2.C(12) and its related Table 1 and replaced itwith a coitditfon which was a part ofTable 1.

Date ofissuance: March 28, 1989 Effective date: March 28, 1989 Amendment No.: 75 FacilityOperating License No. NPF-17i Amendment revised the Operating License Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. February 22, 1989 (54 FR 7632)

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendinent is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Boom locotion: Atkins Library, University of North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC Station), North Carolina 28223 Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos.60-250 and 50-251, Turkey Point Plant Units 3 and 4, Dade County, Florida

~

Date ofapplicotion foramendments:

September 12. 1988 Briefdescription ofamendments:

These amendments modify the Technical Specifications to permit the holding of a Senior Reactor Operator's license on a pressurized water reactor other than Turkey Point, by the Operations Superintendent, to serve as an acceptable qualiTication for that position.

Date ofissuance: March 27, 1989 Effective date: March 27, 1989 Amendment Nos. 135 and 129 Facility Operating Licenses Nos.

DPBQl and DPR<IiAmendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofiriilialnoticein Federal Register. November 2. 1988 (63 FR 44250). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments recei vedi No Local Public Document Room locationi Environmental and Urban AffairsLibrary, Florida International University, Miami, Florida 33199.

Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authorityof Georgh, CityofDalton, Georgia, Docket Nos, 6042i and SM88, Edwin LHatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia Date ofapplication foramendments:

December 2 and 22, 1988, May 31,.

August 8, and December 14, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendmentsi The amendments modified paragraphs 2.C.4 of the Unit 1 license and 2.D, of the Unit 2 license to require compliance with the amended Physical Security Plan, This Plan was amended to conform to the requirements of10 CFR 73.65, Consistent with the provisions of10 CFR 73.55, search requirements must be Implemented within60 days and miscellaneous amendments within 180 days from the effective date of these amendments.

Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 74 I Vfednesday, Apr6 IS, 198B / Notices Date ofissuance. Ma"ch 28. 1989 Effective dale: March 28, 1989 Amendment Nos.: 161 and 98 Facility.Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-8. Amendments revised the Operating Licenses.

Date ofinilialnoticein Fe'deral Register. February 22, 1989 (54 FR 7635)

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a letter to Georgia Power Company dated March 28, 1989 and a Safeguards Evaluation report dated March 28, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hell Drive, Baxley, Georgia 31513.

Houston Lightingh Power Company, City Public Service Board of San Antonio, Central Power and Light Company, City ofAustin, Texas, Docket No. 5M98, South Texas Project, UnitI, Matagorda County, Texas Date ofamendment requestr January 17, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment modified the Technical Specifications (TS) by incorporating the combined TS for Units 1 and 2 issued with the fullpower license for Unit 2 into the Unit 1 license. The changes were administrative in nature only since the two units ere identical.

'ale ofissuance: March 28, 1989 Effeclive date: March 28, 1989, Amendment No, 5 Facility Opera ling License No. NPF-

78. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. February 2, 1989 (54 FR 5292)

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 1989, No significant hazards considerati on comments received: No.

Local PubBc Document Rooms Location: Whaiton County Junior College. J. M. Hodges Learning Center.

911 Holing Highway, Wharton, Texas 77488 and Austin Public Library, 810 Guadalupe Street, Austin, Texas 78701 Houston Lighting 5 Power Company.

City Public Service Board ofSan Antonio, Central Power and Light Company, City of Austin, Texas, Docket No. SMN, South Texas Project, Unit I, Matagorda County, Texas Dale ofamendment request: January 25, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendmenl: The amendment addressed one of the requests of the amendment application by modifying the Technical Specification value of the fuel handling building exhaust air subsystem electric heaters to reference operatioa at 38 kW instead of 50kW, "Ae other requests are under staff review.

Date ofissuance: March 28, 1SSS Effec!tve dale: March 28. 1989. The amendment willbe fullyimplemented six weeks after date of issuance.

Amendment No.r 8

.Facility Operating License No. NPF-

78. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications...

Date ofinitialnolicain Federal Register. February 14. 1989 (54 FR 6789)

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 1989.

No significant hozards consideratian comments received: No.

Local Public Document Roams Location: Wharton County Junior College. J. M. Hodges Learning Center',

911 Boling Highway, Wharton, Texas 77488 and Austin Public Library, 810 Guadalupe Street, Austin, Texas 78701 Louisiana Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana Dele ofamendment request: October 31, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications for containment penetration circuit breaker testing by clarifying the test requirements for integrated functional testing and by adding the surveillance requirements to Table 38-I.

Dale ofissvance: March 23, 1989 Effecliie date: March 23, 1989 Amendment¹ 51 Facility Operating License No. NPF-

38. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

'ote ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. November 30, 1988 (53 FR 48332). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 23, 1989.

No significant hazards consideiali on comments received: No.

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

Louisiana Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles ParIsh, Louisiana Dale ofamendment request:

December 23, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendment. The amendinent revised the Technical Specifications to show the new location for one of the backup seismic monitors.

Dale ofissuance. March 23. 1980 Effective dale: March 23, 1989 Amendmenl No, 52 FacilityOperatirg License No. APF.

38. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dale ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. February 8, 1989 (54 FR 6195).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 23, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Loca/ public Document Rodm lacaliom University of New Orleans Library, Louisiana Collection, Lakefront.

New Orleans, Louisiana 70122.

Louisiana Power end Light Company.

Docket No. 5M82, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana Dale ofamendment request:

December 23, ISSS Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications to coiTect the terminology of control room isolation for toxic gas protection action.

Date ofissuance: March 23. 1989 Effective date: March 23, 1989 Amendment Na, 53 FocilityOperating License No. NPF-

38. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. February I, 1SSS (54 FR 5183).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 23, IS89.

No significant hazands consideration comments received: No.

LocalPublic Document Boom location: Uni'versity ofNew Orleans Library, Louisiana Collection, Lakefront.

New Orleans, Louisiana 70122.

Louisiana Power and ught Company Docket No. 5MN, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit3, St. Charles Parish, Loulsieaa Dale ofamendment request:

December 6, 1988 as supplemented January 5. 1989 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications by deleting requirements for overcurrent protection on disconnected motor-operated-valve actuator compartment-heater breakers from Table 3.8-1.

Date ofissuance: March 27, 1989 Effective dote: March 27.

1989'mendment No.: 54 Facility Operaling License No. NPF-

38. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Federal Register / VoL 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19. 1989 / Notices Da'te ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. January 11. 1988 (54 FR 1022)

The January 5, 1989 subndttal provided additional clarifyinginformation and did not change the finding ofthe inlal notice.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 1989.

Na significant hazards consideration commeats received: No.

Local Public Document Boom location: University of New Orleans Library, Louisiana CoHecHon. Lakefront, New Orleans, Louisiana 70122.

Mississippi Power tti Light Company, System Energy Resources, IncSouth Mississippi Electric Power Association, Docket No. 5041B, Grand GulfNuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mssissippl Date ofapplication foramendment:

December 8, 1888, as supplemented December 30, 1888 and January 31, 1SN.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment changes the Technical Specifications (TS) as required to support the fuel reload for Cycle 4.

Changes are made to the Bases for Section 2.1, "Safety Limits," the TS and Bases for Section 3/4.2, 'Power Distribution Limits," and TS for Section S.3.1, "Fuel AssembHes,"

Date ofissuance: March 13, 19N Effective date: March 13, 1889 Amendment No. 57 FacilityOperating License Na. NPF-

29. This amendment revlses the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialaotice hi Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 13> 1989 No significant hazards consideration comments receivedt No Local Public Document Room location: Hinds Junior College, McLendon Library, Raymond Mississippi 39164 Mississippi Power gi Qght Company, System Energy Resources, Inc., South Mssissippi Electric Power hssochtion, Docket No. 6M18, Grand GulfNuclear Stat&a, Unit 1, Cbdborne County, Msstssippi Date ofapplication foramendment:

September 23, 1988, as revised November 30, December 18 and December 21, 1S88 and. as supplemented February B. February 23, March 8 and March 8, 1989.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment changes the Technical Spec(6cations (TS) by. addhg a plant service water radiation monitor in TS 3/

4.3.7.1, "Radiation Monitoring InstrumentaHon," and by addhg two valves in TS 3/48.42, "MorotOperated Valves Thermal Overload Protection."

These TS changes are made to allow the use. during cold shutdown and refueling, ofan alternate decay heat removal system (ADHRS) to be instaQed during the third refueling outage. In addi5on.

footnotes are added to TS 3.4JL2. TS 33411.1 and TS SJL1L2 to limitthe use of the ADHRS to the third refueling outage.

Date ofissuance: March 27, 19N Effective data March 27, 1988 Amendment Na 59 FacilityOperating License Na NPF-ZR This amendment revises the Technical SpeciBcations.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. February 1, 1989 (54 FR S188)

The Hcensee's letters dated February 8 and 23, and March 8 and 8, 1989.

provided supplemental information which did not affect the initial determinathn ofno signiBcant hazards considerations. The Commission's related evaluathn of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated No sl'gnificant hazards consideration comments re eel vedt No Local Public Document Boom location: Hinds Junior CoHege, McLendon Library, Raymond.

Mssissippi 39154 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al Docket No, 5M', MiHstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3, New Loodon County, Connectkut Date ofapplication foramendment:

January 8, 1989 as supplemented by letter dated January 20, 1989.

Bn'efdesc 'on ofamendment The amendment changes Technical

'pec(Bcation 4.7.10b. "Snubbers". to allow an approxhnate two month extension in the snubber visual inspecHon intervaL to permit continued operation until the next refueling outage.

Date ofisstxtncet March 27, 1989 Effective date: March 27, 1889 Amendment No, 32, Facility Operating License No. NPF-4R Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

'Date ofinitialaoticein Federal Register. February 8. 1989 (64 FR 8201)

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment ls contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 1889 No significant hazards consideration comments received; No.

Local Public Document Room location: Waterford Public Library, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut 08385.

Northens States Power Company, Docket Na 604M, MoaQaelio Nuclide Generatbsg Plant, Wright Ceuisly, Manesota Date ofapphcation far anumdmeat:

March 31. and October I, 1988 Briefdbsajpfioa ofamaadmeat This amendment reviiies the pbmt Technical SpeciBcatkms to re6ect Bre protecthn system changes made during the 1988 refueHng outage, and to reduce the number ofoperating shift members required for s'afe shutdown of the reactor from outside the contml room for Bre protection purposes. The ohanges related to Bre pmtection system modification and/or addithn involve:

(1) the instaHation of an Alternate Shutdown Panel outside the control.

room; (2) the addition ofa feedwater pump hatch sprinkler curtain to the Bre protection sprinkler system; (3) changes in requirements forpenetratIon Bre barrier operability for protecting safe shutdown equipment diiringrefueHng outages; and (4) instaHatkm of additional Bre detection and pmtection equipment in the reactor building.

Date ofissuanca March 29, 1989 Effective date: March 29, 188S Amendment Nat 81 Facility Operating License Ão. DPR-

22. Amendment revises the Technical SpeciBcations.

Date ofinitialnotice ia Federal Register. May 21, 1988 (51 FR 18MB) Tbe Commission's related evaluation ofthe amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 1SN.

No slgruficant hazards consideration comments received: No.

LocalPublic Document Boom lacatituu bQnneaiioHs PubHc Library, Technology and Science Department.

300 NicoHet MaH. MnneapoHs, Minnesota 55401.

Northern States Power Company, Dockets Noa 58-282 and 68408y Prairie Island NucIear Generathg Phmt, UaH3 Nos. 1 and 2, Goodbue Ceuaty, Minnesota Date ofapplication foramendments:

July 18, 1988 as supplemented September 15, 1988 and March 10. 1SN.

Briefdescriptioa ofamendmentsr The amendments delete the spectBcathns

~c) md table TS 3S.2 item 18 deaHng with the reactor trip setpoint initiated low steam generator water level conclusion with steam/feedwater mismatch Bow and low feedwater Bow.

Date ofissuanca AprH 3, 1989 Ejective der. AprH 3, 1989 Amendment Noe,'7 and 80

Federal Register / Vol, 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1989 / Notices Facility Operating Licenses Nos.

DPRM2 and DPR~ Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

'ate ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. February 8, 1989 (54 FR 6201)

Since the date of the initialnotice, the licensee provided supplemental information. This information clarified the original submittal and had no impact on the original no significant hazards consideration determination, and therefore did not warrant renoticing.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April3, 1989.

No significant hazords consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Boom location: Minneapolis Public Library, Technology and Science Department.

300 Nicollet Mall,Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.

NRC Project Director: Theodore R..

Quay, Acting Public Service Company ofColorado, Docket No. M-287;Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station, Platteville, Colorado

- Date ofomendment request: October 14; 1988 Briefdescription ofamendment:

Changes certain portions of Section 7, Administrative controls.

Date ofissuance: March 31. 1989 Effective date: March 31, 1989 Amendment No 69 FacilityOperating License No. DPR-S4. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. November 16, 1988 (53 FR 48155). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

LocalPublic Document Room locatian: Greeley Public Library, City Complex Building, Greeley, Colorado Generating Station, Salem County, New Jersey-Date ofopplication foramendment:

November 28, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendment:

Revised Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.M.f by updating the ASTMstandard referenced in the specification for diesel fuel oil sampling.

Date ofissuance: March 24, 1989 Effective dote: March 24, 1989 Amendment No. 22 FacilityOperoting License No. NPF-

57. This amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitialnoticein Federal Register; December 30, 1988 (53 FR 53097). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 24, 1989.

, No significant hazards consideration comments received: No Local Public Document Boom location: Pennsville Public Library. 190

~S. Broadway. Pennsville. New Jersey 08070 Public Service Electric &Gas Company, Docket No. 5M54, Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem County. New Jersey Date ofapplicotion foramendment:

September 28, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendment:

Increased the setpoints of the main steam line radiation monitors. in the Technical Specifications.

Date ofissuance: April3, 1989 Effective date: April3, 1989

"'mendment No. 23 Faci%'ty Operating License No. NPF-

57. This amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register: November 16. 1988 (53 FR 46156). The Commission's related evaluation ofthe amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April3, 1989.

- No significant hazards considerati on comments received: No LocalPublic Document Boom

- location: Pennsville Public Library, 190'.

Broadway, Pennsville. New Jersey 08070 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Docket No. 50-244, ILE Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York Date ofopplication foramendment:

March 10, 1987 as supplemented on January 28, 1988, August 28, 1988 and January 17, 1989. The licensee submittals ofAugust 26, 1988 and January 17, 1989 contained only minor corrections to the original submittal. Itwas, therefore determined unnecessary to renotice the application.

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment changes Technical Specifications to comply with requirements of Generic Letter 85~ for operation and testing of the reactor trip breakers.

Dote ofissuonce: Aprfi4, 1989 Effective date: 30 days from date of issuance Amendment No,'4 Foci%'ty Operating License No. DPR-18; Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitialnoticein Federal Register: March 23, 1988 (53 FR 9513).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April4, 1989.

No aignificont hazards consideration comments received: No.

LocalPublic Document Room location: Rochester Public Library, 115 South Avenue, Rochester, New York 14610.

Sacramento Municipal Ut0lty IMstrlct Docket No. 5M12, Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, Sacramento County, California Date ofapplication for amendment:

December 30, 1988, as supplemented March 6, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment authorized a one-time extension for certain local leakage rate tests (LLRT)ofcontainment penetrations until the Cycle 8 refueling outage. This amendment also changed the surve0lance period for the LLRTon the Decay Heat Removal suction piping.

Date ofiasuonce: March 29, 1989 Effective date: March 29, 1989 Amendment No.t 102 FacilityOperating License No. DPR-54: Amendment revised the Technical SpeciTications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register, February 8, 1989 (54 FR 8209).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 1989.

No significant hazards'consideration comments receivedt No Local Public Document Room location: Martin Luther King Regional Library, 7340 24th Street Bypass, Sacramento, California 95822 Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 5M27 and 5M28, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Date ofopplicotion foramendments:

December 8, 1988 (TS 88-29)

Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments modify the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications. The changes delete surveillance requirement (SR) 4.49.23 for the pressurizer power-operated relief valves (PORVs) and associated block valves. This SR was not required and it duplicated other SR on these valves.

Date ofissuance: March 9, 1989

. Effective dote: March 9, 1989 Amendment Nos.: 105, 94 Facility Operating Licenses Nos.

DPB-77 and DPR-79. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. January 11, 1989 (54 FR 1025).

~

The Commission's related evaluation of

~

~

~

s

~', ~

I ll '

ll

~ I

~

I

~

I '

~

~I '

~

~

~

~ ~ '

~

I

~ I ~:

~

~

s ~

rt

~

~

I

~

r I

~

~

l so

~ I

~

~

II

~

~ I

~

I I

~ I I

~ ~

~

I

~

I

~

~

I

~ I I l.'

I I

~ I

~

I

~

~

~ 'l'

~

~.

r

~

~ r'.

I

>> 'I

~

~

~I

~

t

~

I Vrr I

~

~

~ I

-I

~

I

, ~

~

0

~

I r

~

~

~

r

~ I I Irr I

~, ~;

I I

~

s r

I r

re

~

I I ~

~

I s

I I

p t

~

l '

I '

s I

~

I '

~

~

~

I I

~

~

I

~

I

~ I ll

~

I

~ 'll ~

~

r I ~ I I

I

~

~

l

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~'

IS

~ II II;

~': I:

~

I

~

I

~

~

I I '

~

~

~

~ ':

'I

~

~ l '

I I '

~ t

~

~

~ ':

I '

~

~

~

i

~ I

~

I

~

I '

~

I I

ss:

~

I

~

~

~

~ ':

I

~

~

~'I

'l

~

~

I

~

I ll I

S I

S

~

~

~ '

~

~

~ I '

I

~

~

~

~ '

~

~ '

~

r

~

~

~

~

I ~

I

~

r Nll ~ I

~

~

~

I

.ss

~

~

II

~

~ :

~

~

~

I

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ I

~

~

~

I

~ t

~

' I

~

~ ~ I I

I

~

~; I

~

~

~

I 'I

~

~

~

~ I

~ I I I

~ ~

~

~

~ I

~

~

I

~

~ ~

'I l

~

~

~

I

~

~ ';

~

~

~

~

~ I: '

I

~

I

~ '

'I I~

t'l

~

I

'oAs I ~, I

'Vr.

I

~

I I

~ '

II '

~

~

I

~

I I I

~

I I

~

I I

~

~ ':

~

I

~

I

~

l I

~

I I

I:

~ I ~

~

~

I

~

I Il

~

~

~ '; I

~

II '

I

~

~

~ I

~

S

~ ~

~ I

~

~

~

I I

~

~

I I

~

~

~ '

l 'l I

I '

I

~

~

~

I '

I I

OI

~

I

~

~ r I

~ s

~

~

~

I

~

~

I' l 'l '

t

~

~ '

~

I

~

~

I

~ I e

I

~

~ I

~

~

t ~

~

~

I

~

lr

~ I

~

~

Il I

~

Ss

~

~

~

I

~

~

~ I I

s

~

I I

~ '

~

~

ll '

~

i -

~

I

~

I

~ '

I

~

~

I ';

~ ~,

~

~

~

~

r l '.s'ss

~

I '

I I

I

~':

~

Jr I

~

~ II Il:

~

I

~

I

'I I 'rrrr Or I I I I l:

~ s

~

I I

~ ';

~

~ I I

~

~

~

II

~ I

~

~

~

~

I I 't I

~ II I'l~ I

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ I

~

'I

~ I

~

~

I r

~

t '

~

lrrtr

~ I

~ '

ll '

ll ~:

~

~

I I

~

I I '

I~ I ~ ': ~: ';

~

~

~ ll 'l'I ~ I 'I

~

~

~

I

~

~

~

~

~

~

I

~

~

~ I

~

~ 'll

~

~

~

~

~

IS '

I

~

~

~

~ '

~

t

~

I

~

~

I

~

~

~

~

I

~

~ I ~

os...-.;

I i.

~

I

~ ~ I I

~

I

~

r

~

t '

t l ~

h

~

~

I 'v

~

I Vri s

~

~ I; I

~

I '

ts

~ '

t

~

~

II

~

~ ;

~

~

t ~ I II

~

I I

~ t t

~

~ t 4 ~

~

~

r J

~.

s

~

Is '

~

~

~

I

~ I s ~

~.

I~

~

~ I I I I

~

~

~

I '

I~

~.

~

I r'

~ t

~ r

~ rs 'I I

~

ls I

~ I

~ I r

I I, I r; I

I I

~

I

~

~

I ~

~

~

I I

~

I I ~ ~ '

~ I ':

~

I

'I

~

~

~'I I

~

~

Jr

~

~ r

~ r I

r

~

I I I~

II '

~ I~

I

~ I '

~ I

~

~

~ I

~ 'os

~ ':

~

~

~ I I

~

~:

~

s

~

~

! Ir

~

~

r I

~

I

~ I I

~ I

~

~

~

t

~

~

~

~

~

SNIO I It

~ I &I I

~

~

~ ~ '

i I 1st

~

~

=

so

~

~

I ~

~

~

I

~

~

~

I '

I

~

~ 1 ll

~

~

~

~

I I I I

~ '.

~

I

~

~ I

~

~

~

I:

~

~ '

ll I

~ '

t':

~

~ el

~

~ ~:

os

~

~,I I I

~

I

~

~

~

I

~ 'l

~

~

~

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No, 74 / Wednesday,.April 19, 1%9 / Notices and (4) the surveillance requirements 4.8.1.1&eh (both units) and 4.8.1.1,2.d.7 (Unit 1 only) for diesel generators, These changes are for both units or for only Unit 1 or Unit 2 as described above.

These TS changes are to correct inconsistencies between TS requirements and to provide clarification of the intent of various TS specification. None of the changes diminishes safety or increases the probability of an accident In any area of the plant.

Dote ofissuance: April3, 1989 Effective date: April3, 1989 Amendment ¹s.: 109, 99 Facility Operating Licenses Nos.

DPR-77 and DPR-79. Amendments revised the Technical SpeciTications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register: December 16, 1987 (52 FR 47794). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment Is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April3, 1989 No significant hazards consideration comments recei ved: No Local Public Document Room locotiorc Chattanooga-Hamilton County Library, 1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. SM27 and 5M28, Sequoyah Nudear Plant,,Units,l and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Date afapplication for amendments:

August 8, 1986 (TS 72)

Briefdescription ofamendments:

These amendments revise the surveillance requirements (SR) for the electrical equipment protective devices in the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS). The changes (1) delete the references to specific procedures in.SR 4.8.3.1.a.1, 4.8.3.1.a.2, 4.8.3.1.a.3,.and 4.8.3.1.b, (2) incorporate a footnote into SR 4.8.3.1.a.3 which allowed this SR to be suspended and (3) delete a resistance measurement test for fuses from SR 4.8.3.1.a.3. The

-other proposed changes in the application for SR 4.8.3.1.a.2 and 4.8.3.1.a.3 to delete testing of the instantaneous elements of the molded case circuit breakers were denied in the staffs letter dated November 7, 1988.

In the licensee's responses dated December 5 and 29, 1S86, to the staff's denial ofproposed changes to the TS on molded case circuit breakers, it discussed possible TS interpretations of the trip function testing of these to reduce the number of these breakers exposed to a potentially degrading test current. The licensee stated that within 6 months after restart ofSequoyah Unit

2. It would advise the staff of any intent to pursue this issue ofTS interpretations. In its letter 'dated October 18. 1988. the licensee stated that it would not pursue this issue further.

Date ofissuonce: April3, 1989 Effective dote: April3, 1989 Amendment Nos.; 110. 100 Facility Operating Licenses Nos.

DPR-77 and DPR-79. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register: August 27, 1986 (51 FR 30582).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April3, 1989 No significant hazards consideration comments recei vedi No Local Public Document Room locotiont Chattanooga-Hamflton County Library, 1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga.

Tennessee 37402.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. SM27 end 6M', Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Date ofopplication foramendments:

December 2, 1988 (TS 88-25)

Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments modify the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications. The changes revise the action statements of limitingcondition for operation 3.4.3.2 for the pressurizer power-operated relief valves (PORVs) and their associated block valves. The changes willrequire different actions based on the cause ofvalve fnoperability. With one or more PORVs inoperable but capable of reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure control, power operation may continue, provided the associated block valve is closed (power does not have to be removed from the closed block valve). With one or more PORVs or block valves inoperable and incapable of RCS pressure control. reactor shutdown will be required.

Date ofissuance: April3, 1989 Effective date: April 3, 1989 Amendment Nos, 111, 101 FacilityOperating Licenses ¹s:

DPR-77 and DPR-79 Amendments revised the Technical Specfficatfons.

Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register: December 30, 1988 (53 FR 53099). The Commfsafon's related evaluation of the amendment fs contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April3, 1989 No significant hazards consideration comments received: No Local Publtc Dacument Room location: Chattanooga-Hamilton County Library, 1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont Dote ofapplication foramendment:

August 26, 1888 BriefDescription ofamendment: The amendment changes TechnIcal Specifications to reflect analog equipment replacement.

Dote ofissuance: March 29, 1989.

Effective date: 30 days from date of issuance.

Amendment ¹,'10 FocilityOperating License No. DPR-ZS: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. November 18, 1888 (51 FR 41870). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 1989, No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main Street, Brattleboro, Vermont 0530I.

VirginiaElectric and Power Company, Docket Noa. 50-280 and 50-281, Swry Power Station, Unit Noa. 1 and 2, Swry County, Virginia.

Dote ofapplication foramendmenls:

June 10, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments deleted the requirements for and references to the Control Room Chlorine Monitoring System to reflect the removal from the site of all chlorine gas storage bottles.

Date ofissuonce: April7, 1989 Effective date: April7, 1S89 Amendment ¹s,'124 and 124 Facility Operoting License Nos. DPR-32 and DPRQ7: Amendments revised the Technical Speciffiication.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register: July 13, 1988 (53 FR 28534), The Commission's related evaluatfon ofthe amendment fs contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April7, 1989.

No significant hazords consideration comments recei vedi No Local Public Document Room location: Swem Library, College of Williamand Mary, Williamsburg.

Virginia 23185 Washington Public Power Supply System, Docket No. 60497,'uclear Project No. 2, Benton County, Washington Date ofopplicotion foramendment:

December 2, 1888, as supplemented February 1. 1889.

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment revises technical

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1989 / Notices

~

15848 specification surveillance requirement 4.8.1,1.2.e.7 regarding verification that automatic diesel generator trips are bypassed upon an accident signal. The amendment precludes the need for the temporary waiver of compliance with the technical specifications, issued February 2, 1989.

Date ofissuance: March 30, 1989 Effective date: March 30, 1989 Amendment No.: 68 Facility Opera ting License No. NPF-21: Amendment changed the Technical Specifications, Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. February 24, 1989 (54 FR 8041).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room locatioru Richland City Library, Swift and Northgate Streets, Richland, Washington 99352.

WolfCreek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50482, Wolf Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas Date ofamendment request: August 25, 1988 and supplemented on July 8, 1987 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment changed Technical Specification paragraphs 3.8.4.1, 4.8.4.1 and deleted Table 3.8-1, "Containment Penetration Conductor Overcurrent Protective Devices." These changes were originally requested in the August 25, 1988 submittal. However, the NRC deferred plant specific consideration pending the NRC's staff resolution of the issue on a generic ba'sis. The generic resolution has subsequently been accomplished and was discussed in the safety evaluation of this amendment.

Date ofIssuance: March 23, 1989 Effective date: March 23, 1989 Amendment No, 28 Facility Operating License No. NPF-

42. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. September 24, 1988 (51 FR 33951). The July 8, 1987 submittal provided additional clarifying information and did not change the finding of the initialnotice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 23, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments recei ved: No.

Local Public Document Room Location: Emporia State University, WilliamAllen White Library, 1200 Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas 66801. and Washburn University School of Law Library, Topeka, Kansas 6%21 WolfCreek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50482, Wolf Creek Generafing Station, Coffey County, Kansas Date ofamendment request: July 6, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment revised WolfCreek Generating Station (WCGS), Unit No. 1, Technical Specification Tables 3.3-3 and 4.3-2, which address the Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation. The amendment removed the Mode 2 applicability requirements from Table 3.3-3 Functional Unit B.g and Table 4.3-2 Functional Unit B.g, "TripofAllMain Feedwater Pumps - Start Motor Driven Pumps".

Date ofIssuance: April3, 1989 Effective date: April3, 1989 Amendment No, 29 Facility Operating License No. NPF-,

42. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. February 22, 1989 (54 FR 7648).

The Commission's,related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April3, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Boom Location: Emporia State University.

WilliamAllen White Library, 1200

.Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas 86801 and Washburn University School of Law Library, Topeka, Kansas 68621, NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE ANDFINAL DETEIUHINATIONOF NO SIGNIHCANTHA7ARDS CONSIDERATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING (EXIGENTOR EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES)

During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments, The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application for the amendment compiles with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and

'he Commission's rules and regulations.

The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the

'ommission's rules'and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual 30-day Notice of Consideration of Issuance ofAmendment and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for a Hearing. For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local media to provide notice to the public in the area surrounding a licensee's facilityof the licensee's application and of the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration.

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

In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted. for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards 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 provide an opportunity for public comment. Ifcomments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible.

Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective. notwithstanding the pendency b'efore itof a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing. where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved.

The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action.

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

Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51,22. Therefore, pursuant

Federal Register / VoL 54, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 1989 / Notices to 10 CFR 5122(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. Ifthe Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment.

it is so indicated.

For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 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 forpublic inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L 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 ofReactor Projects.

The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendments. By May 19, 1989, the licensee may Be 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 Gled in accordance with the Commission's "Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Pmceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. Ifa request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, willrule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board willissue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2,714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be aHected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the followingfactors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the pmceeding: (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, GnanctaL 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 Gfteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.

Not later than fifteen [15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the pmceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention willnot be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene becoine parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to articipate fullyin the conduct of the earing, 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.

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building.

2120 L Street, NWWashington, DC, by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner pmmptly so inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone cail to Western Union at 1/800) 3284000 (in Missouri 1-(800) 3484700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram identification Number 3737'nd the followingmessage addressed to (Pmj ect Dt'rector)i petitioner's name and telephone number. date petition was maQetL plant name: and publication date and page number of this Federal Register noticL A copy of the petition should also be sent to the OSce of the General CounseL U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington.

DC 20555, and to the attorney fot the licensee.

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

(v) and 2.714(d).

Arkansas Power 5 LightCompany, Docket No. 50413, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1), Pope County, Arkansas Date ofamendment retluest: March 23.

1989 Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment authorized the steady state power level for ANO-1 not to exceed 1284 megawatts thermal for a period not to exceed 50 effective fullpower days.

This limitation in power level was required due to identification of a previously unanalyzed loss ofcoolant accident (LOCA).

Date ofissuance: March 29, 1989 Effective date: March 29. 1989 Amendment No, 119 FacilityOperating License Na. DPR-

51. Amendment revised the operating license.

Public comments requested as ta proposed no aignificant itazards considerationt No. The Commission's related evaluation ofthe amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, and final determination ofno significant hazards consideration are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 1989.

Attorneyforlicensee: Nicholas S.

Reynolds, Esq. Bishop, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds, 1400 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20005-3502 Local Public Documeri t Room location: TomUnson Libraqr, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas 72801 NRC Pm/eat Director: Jose A. Calvo Dated et Rockvtlle, Msiylend, this 13th dsy of April,198L For the Nuclear Regulatory Conuntssiou Steven A. Varge, Di~toc DivisionafReactor Projects-I/II, OfficeafNuclear Reactor Regulation (Doc. 894i200 Bled 4-1MS; L45 em)

SILUIIOCOO% 750041%

+'Aygf I<) lf' X

0

~

~