ML17158A961
| ML17158A961 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1995 |
| From: | Poslusny C NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9511020330 | |
| Download: ML17158A961 (56) | |
Text
gP,R AKQ0
-0 Cy 0
I 0
V>
P 0
Yg 0
~O
++*++
LICENSEE:
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055$ 4001 October 24, 1995 FACILITY:
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF AUGUST 29, 1995 MEETING 50- 387 On August 29,
- 1995, Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PP&L) and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff met in Rockville, Maryland, to discuss the status of outstanding licensing issues for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1
and 2.
Enclosure 1 is a list of those who attended this meeting.
The meeting began with some general discussions about office streamlining and efforts to reduce the number of outstanding licensing actions over the next few months.
The staff provided a summary of licensing action status and indicated that it expected to complete the approval and issue the set of outage related amendments before the upcoming Unit 2 refueling outage begins in September.
Other items discussed by subject follow.
- l. Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) Relocation Submittal The PP&L staff discussed the justification for the proposed relocation of the EOF from the site in Berwick, PA., to Milkes-Barre, PA.,
as included in the April 12, 1995, submittal.
Enclosure 2 is a set of slides that were presented.
The focus of the discussion was the fact that PP&L now estimates that the EOF can be effectively staffed by employees from the Allentown and Susquehanna site within 90 minutes.
The staff indicated that this time period was reasonable and that it expects to recommend approval of the proposed move in a Commission paper being prepared.
In addition, the staff suggested that PP&L conduct a limited, off-hours, unannounced call-out drill to demonstrate that the staff working in Allentown assigned to the EOF team can report to the new location within the 90-minute time frame.
This would have to be completed before the staff would approve the relocation package.
PP&L indicated that it would perform such a drill and would commit to such in a supplemental submittal.
- 2. Fire Protection Issues PP&L provided an overview-discussion of its fire protection program and focused on two issues of interest to the staff: the response to staff questions on its safe shutdown analysis and questions on a
10 CFR Part 50 Appendix R exemption regarding motor operated valve (MOV) hot shor ts relative to the effects of a control room fire.
Enclosure 3 is the set of slides that were presented.
For the safe shutdown analysis review, the staff provided a set of additional questions to the licensee (Enclosure
- 4) related to spurious actuations of redundant valves as a result of single, fire-induced, hot shorts in respective control circuits.
During the discussion it was noted that there is a
disagreement on the definition of multiple spurious actuations.
The staff 9511020330 951024 j
pDR soocv, oooooosw).,
P PDR HEC RI.K I:HTR CGPV
indicated that any and all actuations precipitated by hot shorts must be considered one at a time in a given fire area and the appropriate mitigative design features or operator actions should be addressed.
- However, the licensee stated that it had not considered multiple occurrences of actuations in a given area in its evaluation.
The PPEL staff agreed to reconsider its position and provide a response to the staff's questions.
Concerning the Appendix R exemption, the licensee provided a discussion of the status of its evaluation (Enclosure
- 3) regarding the interpretation of the requirements for the control room fire for the HOV hot short issue.
It was emphasized that there were about 79 valves that must be considered as being susceptible to potential effects of hot shorts and that the estimated cost for new cable installation to minimize equipment damage due to hot shorts would require a cost of between
$6-8 H.
The staff indicated that its contractor is reviewing the August 2 submittal and will provide feedback by the end of October regarding this request for exemption.
Docket Nos.
50-387/388
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/encls:
See next page
/s/
Chester
- Poslusny, Senior Project Hanager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION w/encl I W. Russell/F. Hiraglia R.
Zimmerman S.
Varga J. Zwolinski J. Stolz H. O'rien OGC E. Jordan, D/AEOD H. Banerjee K. Sullivan ACRS(4)
A. Bryant W.
Dean F. Laughlin W.
Dean C. Hiller T. Essig F. Kantor W. Haier' Stinson DISTRIBUTION w/all encl s Docket File-PUBLIC PDI-2 Reading J. White, RGN-I C. Poslusny OFFICE NAHE PDI-2 LA HO'B ien
)PDI-2 PH P
2 D
CPoslusny:mw JS DATE e
95 (6 L 95 95 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMEN 'AHE:a:)SU8-29.SUH
indicated that any and all actuations precipitated by hot shorts must be considered one at a time in a given fire area and the appropriate mitigative design features or operator actions should be addressed.
However, the licensee stated that it had not considered multiple occurrences of actuations in a given area in its evaluation.
The PP&L staff agreed to reconsider its position and provide a response to the staff's questions.
Concerning the Appendix R exemption, the licensee provided a discussion of the status of its evaluation (Enclosure
- 3) regarding the interpretation of the requirements for the control room fire for the HOV hot short issue.
It was emphasized that there were about 79 valves that must be considered as being susceptible to potential effects of hot shorts and that the estimated cost for new cable installation to minimize equipment damage due to hot shorts would require a cost of between
$6-8 N.
The staff indicated that its contractor is reviewing the August 2 submittal and will provide feedback by the end of October regarding this request for exemption.
Docket Nos.
50-387/388
Enclosures:
As stated Chester
- Poslusny, Senior Project Hanager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc w/encls:
See next page
Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1
8 2
CC:
Jay Silberg, Esq.
- Shaw, Pittman, Potts 5 Trowbridge 2300 N Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 Br yan A. Snapp, Esq.
Assistant Corporate Counsel Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Hr. J.
H. Kenny Licensing Group Supervisor Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Hrs. Haitri Banerjee Senior Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 35 Berwick, Pennsylvania 18603-0035 Mr. William P. Dornsife, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources P. 0.
Box 8469 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-8469 Hr. Jesse C. Tilton, III Allegheny Elec. Cooperative, Inc.
212 Locust Street P.O.
Box 1266 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1266 Chairman Board of Supervisors 738 East Third Street
- Berwick, PA 18603 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Hr. Harold G. Stanley Superintendent of Plant Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Pennsylvania Power and Light Company Box 467 Berwick, Pennsylvania 18603 Hr. Herbert D. Woodeshick Special Office of the President Pennsylvania Power and Light Company Rural Route 1,
Box 1797 Berwick, Pennsylvania 18603 George T. Jones Manager-Engineering Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Hr. Robert G.
Byram Senior Vice President-Nuclear Pennsylvania Power 3 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Dr. Judith Johnsrud National Energy Committee Sierra Club 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16803
1 I
I 4'
LIST OF ATTENDEES NRC NEETING WITH PP&L AUGUST 29 1995
~NAH C. Poslusny C. T. Coddington
,J.
Kenny R.
R. Sgarro H. Banerjee R. Haiers T.
Gorman E. Jebsen B. Williams C. Burke K. Sullivan A. Singh A. Bryant C. Hyers A. Price F. Laughlin C. Hiller T. Essig F. Kantor W. Haier N. Stinson ORGANIZATION NRC/NRR PP&L PP&L PP&L NRC/NRR PADED-BRP PP&L PP&L PP&L PP&L NRR/BNL NRR/DSSA NRR/DSSA PP&L PP&L, NRC NRC NRC/NRR NRR NRC/NRR NRC/NRR Enclosure 1
PP8L'ummary Emergency Operations FacilityActivationTime Proposed New Wilkes-Barre Location at the East Mountain Business Center
~ Our analyses show that 90 minutes is achievable with only minor additional changes
~ We propose to change our submittal to reflect a 90 minute activation time for the new EOF.
Background
Background (cont.)
~ Current EOF is at the site near Berwick
'o We currently staff the EOF with a mixture of site and Allentown personnel
~ Travel time from Allentown to the existing EOF is about 90 to 120 minutes
~ Travel time for site personnel (from their homes) is generally between 15 and 45 minutes.
~ Originally an interim organization was used to get ready but activation occurred when the Allentown personnel arrived (on the order of 120 to 150 minutes).
~ In 1992 we added interim members from the site to activate the EOF in 60 minutes (same are our TSC).
Proposal Functions
~ Establish EOF at Wilkes-Barre in conjunction with the Media Operations Center (MOC)
~ Staff itwith personnel from site and Allentown
~ Activate itwith the permanent staff in 90 minutes
~ Rad and Environmental Assessment
~ Communication with federal, state, county and local agencies
~ Overall coordination of utilityefforts
~ Public information 8/28/95 Enclosure 2
PP8L Assessment.
Assessment VWV".V V
~
A
~ TSC provides rad assessment and technical resources that can handle the activites that arise in the 60A90 minute window
~ The biggest challenge is public information management - this capability is activated in the EOF/MOC within60 minutes.
~ Our original submittal identified 120 and 150 minutes to activate the EOF (same as original design)
~ When first proposed we estimated that the EOF could actually be activated in 105 minutes
~ Some changes have occurred since then NotificationSystem A
W NV WWVAVAWAWW Travel time WWWA A AV WAVAWAVVW
~ We have done extensive testing and evaluation of system and how our people respond
~ The system was made somewhat faster leading to more rapid completion of call-outs
~ We have additional testing and changes underway
~ Most travel from Allentown is on Turnpike
~ Astudy of where potential responders live indicate that most live relatively close to the Turnpike entrance in Allentown
~ Some roster changes willbe necessary for people far from the Turnpike InitialTurnover Additional Emergency Planning Activities
~ Facilitywillbe kept fullyready so that set up time is negligable
~ Site based responders should be able to establish initial information
~ Planned change in approach to emphasize prompt brief turnovers
~ Additional activities are being pursued which should provide further benefit
>> Regular facility minhinlls
>> Use of mobile phones
>> New integrated plant computer system
>> New fixed and mobile offsite monitors
~tg 8/28/95
mer enc erations aci it ctivati.on ime Proposed New Wilkes-Barre Location at the East Mountain Business Center PP8L
~ Our analyses show that 90 minutes is achievable with only minor additional changes
~ We propose to change our submittal to reflect a 90 minute activation time for the new EOF.
~ Current EOF is at the site near Berwick
~ We currently staff the EOF with a mixture of site and Allentown personnel
~ Travel time from Allentown to the existing EOF is about 90 to 120 minutes
~ Travel time for site personnel (from their homes) is generally between 15 and 45 minutes.
PPBL
I I
BC 10U.I1 COIlt.
~ Originally an interim organization was used to get ready but activation occurred when the Allentown personnel arrived (on the order of 120 to 150 minutes).
~ In 1992 we added interim members from the site to activate the EOF in 60 minutes (same are our TSC).
PP8L
10 OSB.
V
~ Establish EOF at Wilkes-Barre in conjunction with the Media Operations Center (MOC)
~ Staff it with personnel from site and Allentown
~ Activate it with the permanent staff in 90 minutes PP&L
~ Rad and Environmental Assessment
~ Communication with federal, state, county and local agencies
~ Overall coordination of utilityefforts
~ Public information PP8L
ssessment
~ TSC provides rad assessment and technical resources that can handle the activites that arise in the 60-90 minute window.
~ The biggest challenge is public information management this capability is activated in the EOF/MOC within 60 minutes.
PP8L
ssessment
~ Our original submittal identified 120 and 150 minutes to activate the EOF (same as original design)
~ When first proposed we estimated that the EOF could actually be activated in.
105 minutes
~ Some changes have occurred since then PPBL
oti ication stem
~ We have done extensive testing and evaluation of system and how our people respond
~ The system was made somewhat faster leading to more rapid completion of call-outs
~ We have additional testing and changes underway pp8L
~
~
h A
1 B.Ve tlIIle
~ Most travel from Allentown is on Turnpike
~ A study of where potential responders live indicate that most live relatively close to the Turnpike entrance in Allentown
~ Some roster changes will be necessary for people far from the Turnpike ppsL
nitia urnover
~ Facility will be kept fully ready so that set up time is negligable
~ Site based responders should be able to establish initial information
~ Planned change in approach to emphasize prompt brief turnovers PP&L
itiona mer enc annin ctivities
~ Additional activities are being pursued which should provide further benefit
>> Regular facility mini-drills
>> Use of mobile phones
>> New integrated plant computer system
>> New fixed and mobile offsite monitors PP8L
e fp -"
0 m
DO 0
C CD
~ PURPOSE
~ FIRE PROTECTION OVERVIEW
~ BRIEF HISTORY SSES FIRE PROTECTION
~ RESPONSE TO ANALYSISQUESTIONS
~ RESPONSE TO MOV HOT SHORT QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS
~ THERMO - LAG RESOLUTION STRATEGY
~ ADDRESS QUESTIONS ON THE SHUTDOWN ANALYSIS
~ ADDRESS QUESTIONS ON THE MOV HOT SHORT DEVIATIONREQUEST
~ EXPLAIN PP8 L. STRATEGY FOR RESOLVING THERMO - LAG ISSUES
~ FIRE PROTECTION IS A MAJOR COMMITMENT AT SUSQUEHANNA
~ APPROACH TO COMPLIANCE AND DESIGN TO DATE HAS BEEN VERY CONSERVATIVE
~ PROGRAM HAS BEEN CONTINUALLY IMPROVING
~ RESOLUTION OF THERMO - LAG REQUIRES FURTHER REANALYSIS
~ COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW AND REANALYSIS IS UNDERWAY
SAFE SHUTDO HISTORY I
i1lvL
~ LICENSING ANALYSIS
>> MINORITY/MAJORITYAPPROACH
>> BASED ON FIRE ZONES
>> USED. SPATIAL SEPARATION WITHINZONES
>> 1985 INSPECTION-REANALYSIS
SAFE SHUTDO HISTORY-1985 REANALYSIS
~ MINIMIZEOPERATOR ACTIONS o USE FIRE AREAS
~ ELIMINATESPATIALSEPARATION WITHIN ZONES
~ SIMPLIFYANALYSISRULES FOR CONTINUED COMPLIANCE (I.E. 3 PATHS)
~ RELY HEAVILYON FIRE BARRIERS
SPECIFIC TOPICS AUGUST 29, 1995
~ RECENT QUESTIONS ON FPRR REV.4
~ THERMO-LAG UPDATE
UESTIONS ON FPRR REV. 4
~ Spurious Operations
>> NRC G.L. 86-1 0; Section 5.3.1
>> NRC G.L: 86-10; Section 5.3.10
>> Meaning of "Simultaneous" Control Room Fire Analysis
UESTIONS ON FPRR REV. 4
~
+
i~
g g4 4+%
I ly
~ NRC G.L. 86-10; SECTION 5.3.1
>> CRITERIA FOR HOT SHORTS AFFECTING INDIVIDUALCOMPONENTS
>> USED TO DETERMINE THE POPULATION OF SPURIOUS OPERATIONS
UESTIONS ON FPRR REV. 4 NRC G.L. 86-10; SECTION 5.3.10
>> CRITERIA FOR ADDRESSING POPULATION OF POTENTIAL SPURIOUS OPERATIONS
>> ONE WORST CASE SPURIOUS OPERATION PER FIRE
>> HIGHlLOWPRESSURE - BOTH VALVES IN ANY ONE LINE
UESTIONS ON FPRR REV. 4
~ 9.
+
XA!%
~ SIMULTANEOUSMEANS:
>> "EXISTINGAT THE SAME TIME"
~ REFERS TO "THE SPURIOUS OPERATION"
MOVHOT SHORTS
~ SPECIFIC DEVIATION
~ BASIS FOR DEVIATION
~ EFFORTS TO REDUCE NUMBER OF VALVES
~ ACTIONS TO CLOSE
THERMO-LAGUPDATE o STATUS
~ RESOLUTION PLAN
~ EXPECTED CHANGES
THERMO-LAGUPDATE-STATUS
~ 15,000 LINEAR FEET INSTALLED 85/o IS 1-HOUR RATED
~ 85% IS CONDUIT
THERMO-LAGUPDATE-RESOLUTION PLAN ld M
~ SIMPLIFYSAFE SHUTDOWN ANALYSIS
~ PERFORM DESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATIONS
~ QUALIFYREQUIRED BARRIERS
~ MODIF.YTHE PLANT, AS REQUIRED
THERMO-LAGUPDATE-EXPECTED CHANGES
~ SIMPLIFICATIONOF SAFE SHUTDOWN COMPONENT LIST
~ USE OF FIRE COMPARTMENT INTERACTION ANALYSIS FROM FIVE METHODOLOGY
~ OPTIMIZE USE OF OPERATOR ACTION
~ CHANGES TO DEVIATIONREQUESTS
SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW REPORT REV. 4 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION Request No. 2-June 1995 The following questions, concerns and comments were identified during our review of the licensee's response to our February 1995 Request for Additional Information:
ln its response to Question No.2 of the February 1995 RAI, the licensee identifies several examples where redundant valves may be subject to spurious actuations (i.e.
undesirable change of position) as a result of a
single, fire-induced, hot-short on their respective control circuits. In the instances identified, the control circuits of both valves may be subject to damage by a single fire.
Fire-induced spurious actuation of the redundant valves could adversely affect the safe shutdown capability.
In its response the licensee states that based on its interpretation of guidance contained in Generic Letter 86-10, no further evaluation or protection is required, since two hot shorts (one on each valve) would be necessary to cause both redundant valves to spuriously actuate. For Example, Fire Zone 1-1A, located in Fire Area R-1A, contains both the Division II Outboard Containment Isolation Valve (HV-15768) and the Division I Inboard Containment Isolation Valve (HV-15766).
Neither of these normally closed valves are required for safe shutdown, but one valve must remain closed to prevent flow diversion from the suppression pool.
In its evaluation of this issue, the licensee states: "For both valves to open simultaneously, a hot short on each valve is required.
NRC Generic Letter 86-10 does not require the assumption of multiple hot shorts for non-hi/lo pressure interfaces.
Therefore, one of these two valves is assumed to remain closed."
With regard to the above, please address the following:
Provide an explanation of how the protection provided for the subject redundant components (i.e., valves), which are located in the same fire area/zone, provides an equivalent level of protection to that required by the the separation criteria contained in Section III.G.2of Appendix R to 10 CFR 50.
2.
In response to Question 5.3.1 of Generic Letter 86-10 the NRC states that for consideration of spurious actuations, all possible functional failure modes of the component must be evaluated, that is, the component could be energized or de-energized by one or more of the circuit failure modes defined in Sections III.G.2 and III.L.7of Appendix R to 10 CFR 50 (i.e., hot shorts, open circuits or shorts to ground).
If it can be shown that two or more shorts of the proper polarity are necessary to cause the component to spuriously actuate, no further evaluation would be necessary, except for cases involving high/low pressure interfaces.
For components other than High/Low pressure interfaces simultaneous spurious operations are not considered credible. However, in Enclosure 4
Ek
'r g
0 accordance with the established NRC review practice, the evaluation should consider the occurrence of all potential fire-induced spurious operations resulting from a single fire that could adversely affect the safe shutdown capability. This position is explained in Section 3.01e.2(f) of NRC Inspection and Enforcement Manual Inspection Procedure 64100, which states, in part, that licensee's must "analyze for any and all spurious actuations or failures where no such spurious actuations or failures occur simultaneously".
Therefore, "any and all" spurious actuations that may occur as a result of a single fire should be considered on a one-at-a-time basis.
Once identified, appropriate protection features or mitigating actions (e.g., manual operator actions) should then be implemented.
For the Containment Isolation Valve example described above, it appears that there is a potential for both valves to spuriously actuate (one at a time) as a result of a single fire. In this case, protection of the control circuits of one of the valves in accordance with Section III.G.2 or mitigating actions (e.g.,
operator action to ensure one of the valves willremain closed) would appear to be necessary in order to preclude flow diversion from the suppression pool.
Please provide the PP&L rational for not providing this level of protection.
2.
~
~II ln response to RAI Question 3, requesting a more detailed description of the analysis performed to address a Control Room fire scenario, the licensee suggests a joint review meeting be held to discuss this issue.
In order to gain the level of understanding necessary to complete our review it appears that such a meeting is necessary.
To facilitate the review process BNL recommends that a one-day meeting be held at the licensee',s facility at a mutually agreeable time.
~O 4 p L
a
'T
'b RI BUTION "Docket:Fi 1 e~
PDI-2Reading Ni0'Brien October 2,
$ 995 DOCKET NO.
50-387/388 MEMORANDUMTO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SUSgUEHAttNA STEAN ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS i AND 2 One signed original of the Federal Register Notice identified below is attached for your transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. Additional conformed copies
(
5
) of the Notice are enclosed for your use.
Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit(s) and Operating License(s).
Notice of Receipt of Partial Application for Construction Permit(s) and Facility License(s):
Time for submission of Views on Antitrust matters.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License.
(Call with 30-day insert date).
Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License(s); Notice of Availabilityof Applicant's Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility License(s) and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
Notice of Availabilityof NRC Draft/Final Environmental Statement.
Notice of Limited Work Authorization.'otice of Availabilityof Safety Evaluation Report.
Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit(s).
Notice of Issuance of Facility Operating License(s) or Amendment(s).
Order.
Exemption.
Notice of Granting Exemption.
Environmental Assessment.
Notice of Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
'eceipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Issuance of Final Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
H Other:
i,'o A
Operating Licenses Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attachment(s):
As stated IK.O'Brien Telephone:
@5
- 1414, DOCUMENT NAME:
To receive s copy of thl u
e ndicste In the box C
Copy without sttschmentlencloeure E
Copy with sttschment/enclosure
'N a No copy OFFICE NAME DATE O'Bri rI 95 OFFICIALRECORD COPY
8 h
D IS BUT ION Doc
. File PDI-2 Reading NO'Brien Septei'.Iber 6,
$ 995 DOCKET NO. 50-387 and 50-388 MEMORANDUMTO:
Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration FROM:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUSQUEHANNA STEAt'( ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS i AND 2 One signed original of the, Federal Register Notice identified below is attached for your transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Additional conformed copies
(
5
) of the Notice are enclosed for your use.
Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit(s) and Operating License(s).
Notice of Receipt of Partial Application for Construction Permit(s) and Facility License(s):
Time for submission of Views on Antitrust matters.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License.
(Call with 30-day insert date).
Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License(s); Notice of Availabilityof Applicant's Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility License(s) and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
Notice of Availabilityof NRC Draft/Final Environmental Statement.
Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
Notice of Availabilityof Safety Evaluation Report.
Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit(s).
Notice of Issuance of Facility Operating License(s) or Amendment(s).
Order.
Exemption.
Notice of Granting Exemption.
XX Environmental Assessment.
Notice of Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Issuance of Final Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Other:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attachment(s):
As stated t<. O'rien Telephone:
DOCUMENT NAME:
To receive a copy of is o
m t, indicate In the bor.
C Copy without attachment/enclosure E
Copy with attachment/enclosure "N
~ No copy OFFICE NAME DATE en OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
ll h
V '
August 22, 1995 DISTRIBUTION:
<Docket Fi le PDI-2 RcI.
MEMORANDUMTO:
Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration FROM:
SUBJECT:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SUSQUEHANNA STEAII ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1
AND 2 One signed original of the Federal Register Notice identified below is attached for your transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Additional conformed copies
(
5
) of the Notice are enclosed for your use.
Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit(s) and Operating License(s).
Notice of Receipt of Partial Application for Construction Permit(s) and Facility License(s):
Time for submission of Views on Antitrust matters.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License.
(Call with 30-day insert date).
Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License(s); Notice of Availabilityof Applicant's Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility License(s) and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
Notice of Availabilityof NRC Draft/Final Environmental Statement.
Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
Notice of Availabilityof Safety Evaluation Report.
Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit(s).
Notice of Issuance of Facility Operating License(s) or Amendment(s).
Order.
Exemption.
Notice of Granting Exemption.
Environmental Assessment.
Notice of Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Issuance of Final Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Other:
r
~
/
I DOCKET NO5 5O 367//3BQQt Attachment(s):
As stated
Contact:
p O t B<> <n Telephone:
415 1414 DOCUMENT NAME:
To receive a copy of thla nt, Indicate in the box:
C Copy without attachment/encloaura E
~ Copy with attachment/encioaure N
a No copy OFFICE NAME DATE OFFICIALRECORD COPY
7590-01 UNIT STATES NUCLEA REGULATORY COMMISSION PE NSYLVANIA OW AND IGHT COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-387 AND 50-388 CORRECTION The March 29,
- 1995,
~federa Re<eister contained a "Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating
- License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing," for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
This notice corrects the notice published in the Fed<~~r
~e'a~te on March 29,
- 1995, (60 FR 16192).
The second sentence of the description section should read as follows:
Specifically, for the refueling floor exhaust duct and wall exhaust duct radiation monitors, the proposed change would modify the applicable operational condition during specific control rod testing evolutions which are core alterations and would indicate that the operability requirement
~chan e
does not apply during shutdown margin demonstrations.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of August 1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
<</~WZk + ~i Leonard N. Olshan, Acting Director Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Dl-2 R
di g
NO'BI ien
'August 16, 1995 DOCKET NO.
50387 and 50-388 MEMORANDUMTO:
Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration FROM:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SUMECT'SUSgUEHANN STEAN ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1
AND 2 One signed original of the Federal Register Notice identified below is attached for your transmittal
,,to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Additional conformed copies
(
5
) of the Notice are enclosed for your use.
Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit(s) and Operating License(s).
Notice of Receipt of Partial Application for Construction Permit(s) and Facility License(s):
Time for submission of Views on Antitrust matters.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License.
(Call with 30-day insert date).
Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License(s); Notice of Availabilityof Applicant's Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility License(s) and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
Notice of Availabilityof NRC Draft/Final Environmental Statement.
Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
Notice of Availabilityof Safety Evaluation Report.
Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit(s).
Notice of Issuance of Facility Operating License(s) or Amendment(s).
Order.
Exemption.
J1+ Notice of Granting Exemption.
Environmental Assessment.
Notice of Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Issupnce of Final Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Other:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attachment(s):
As stated
Contact:
f~).
Qt QI.jerl Telephone:
415
$ 414, DOCUMENT NAME:
To receive e copy of th document, indicate In the box C
~ Copy without ettschment/enclosure E
~ Copy with ettechment/enclosure N
~ No copy OFFICE NAME Il 'r i en DATE 95 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
A
%h
DOCKET NO. 50 387/388 August. 8, 1995 DISTRIBUTION
-Docket Pile PDX-2 Reading HO'Brien MEMORANDUMTO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SQQUEEQKA. SXEhH E2KTRIC STAXXOÃ, UHXTS 1 and 2 One signed original of the Federal Register Notice identified below is attached for your transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Additional conformed copies
(
5
) of the Notice are enclosed for your use.
I Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit(s) and Operating License(s).
Notice of Receipt of Partial Application for Construction Permit(s) and Facility License(s):
Time for submission of Views on Antitrust matters.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License.
(Call with 30-day insert date).
Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License(s); Notice of Availabilityof Applicant's Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility License(s) and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
Notice of Availabilityof NRC Draft/Final Environmental Statement.
Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
Notice of Availabilityof Safety Evaluation Report.
Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit(s).
Notice of Issuance of Facility Operating License(s) or Amendment(s).
Order.
Exemption.
Notice of Granting Exemption.
Environmental Assessment.
Notice of Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Issuance of Final Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Other:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attachment(s):
As stated
Contact:
TelephoneI'fl 0 Bm~
415-1414 DOCUMENT NAME'o receive s copy of t i OFFICE NAME DATE t, indlcste In the box:
C
~ Copy without sttschment/enclosure OFFICIAL RECORD COPY "E
a Copy with snschment/enclosure N"
No copy
~
I
July 10, 1995 DISTRIBUTION PDI-2 Reading 110'Brien MEMORANDUMTO:
Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration FROM:
SUBJECT:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SUQgPHAHNA STEAN ZLZCT1UC STATION, UNITS 1 AHD 2 One signed original of the Federal Register Notice identified below is attached for your transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Additional conformed copies
(
g
) of the Notice are enclosed for your use.
Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit(s) and Operating License(s).
Notice of Receipt of Partial Application for Construction Permit(s) and Facility License(s):
Time for submission of Views-on Antitrust matters.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License.
(Call with 30-day insert date).
Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License(s); Notice of Availabilityof Applicant's Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility License(s) and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
Notice of Availabilityof NRC Draft/Final Environmental Statement, Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
Notice of Availabilityof Safety Evaluation Report.
Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit(s)
~
Notice of Issuance of Facility Operating License(s) or Amendment(s).
Order.
Exemption.
Notice of Granting Exemption.
Environmental Assessment.
Notice of Preparation of Environmental Assessment, Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Issuance of Final Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Q Other:
DOCKET NO.
Attachment(s):
As stated
Contact:
HI O'rien Telephone:
DOCUMENT NAME:
To receive a copy of thle docu en indicate in the born C
Copy without attachmentlencloeure a
Copy with attachmentlencloeure N
~ No copy OFFICE NAME DATE OFFICIALRECORD COPY