Text

Forwards Radiological Emergency Preparedness Rept for 880823-24 Exercise.No Deficiencies noted.Twenty-one Areas Requiring Corrective Action Noted.Offsite Radiological Emergency Preparedness Adequate
	ML17334B336
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	12/04/1989
From:	Kwiatkowski D; Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	Congel F; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17328A218	List: ML17334B336;
References
	NUDOCS 8912140155
	Download: ML17334B336 (65)
	v • d • e

ACCELERATED DISTfUBUTION DEMONM34ATION SYSTEM REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR:8912140155 DOC.DATE: 89/12/04 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET FACIL:50-315 Donald C.

Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Indiana

. 05000315 50-316 Donald C.

Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Indiana 05000316 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION KWIATKOWSKI,D.

Federal Emergency Management Agency RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION CONGEL,F.J.

Division of Radiation Protection

& Emergency Preparedness R

SUBJECT:

Forwards radiological emergency preparedness rept for 880823-24 exercise.

0 DISTRIBUTION CODE:

IE35D COPIES RECEIVED: LTR ENCL J SIZE:

P~ /~

TITLE: Emergency Preparedness-Appraisal/Confirm tory Action Ltr/Exercise Rep NOTES:+~>/P+r5

/

RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD3-1 PD INTERNAL: AEOD/DOA/IRB NRR/PMAS/ILRB12 OC/LFMB RGN3 FILE 0 1 EXTERNAL: LPDR NSIC COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

1 1

0 1

1 1

1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME GIITTER,J.

NRR/DREP/PEPB9 D NUDOG+~STRACT REG FIRER

.02 NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

1 1

1 A

D R

D NOTE TO ALL"RIDS" RECIPIENTS:

PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASIZI CONTACT~.DOCUMENI'ONTROLDESK, ROOM Pl-37 (EXT. 20079) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAMEFROM DISTRIBUTION TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:

LTTR 12 ENCL 11 D

D

t ypal Mgp

~O z

C

+.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 0

0 DEI; 4 '~..

Mr. Frank Z. Congel Director, Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Congel:

Enclosed is a copy of the exercise report for the August 23-24, 1988, exercise.of the offsite radiological emergency response plans, site-specific to the D.

C.

Cook Nuclear Power Station.

Berrien County and the State of Michigan fully participated in the exercise.

The State of Indiana, as well as the American Electric Power Company partially participated in the exercise.

The report was drafted November 23,1988, by Region V of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and transmitted to FEMA Headquarters.

Subsequent report revisions were coordinated with and transmitted to FEMA Headquarters November 22, 1989.

There were no deficiencies observed during the August 23-24, 1988, exercise.

However, the report identifies twenty-one Areas Requiring Corrective Action.

The FEMA Region V staff has reviewed the schedule of corrective actions provided by the States of Michigan and Indiana in response to the exercise weaknesses identified, included a copy of the corrective actions, and has forwarded a copy of the exercise report to the State.

Based on our review of the final exercise report and schedule of corrective actions, FEMA considers that offsite radiological emergency preparedness is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate offsite measures can be taken to protect the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of the D.

C.

Cook Nuclear Power Station, in the event of a radiological emergency occurring at that site.

Therefore, the approval of the offsite plans for the D. C.

Cook Nuclear Power Station granted under 44 CFR 350 on September 28,

1983, continues to be in effect.

8912140155 S91204 PDR ADOCK 05000315 F

PDC

Xf you have any cyxestions, please feel free to contact me on 646-2871.

Dennis H. Kwiatkowski Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Enclosure

August 16, 1989 1

DISTRIBUTION

. +DOCKET FILE~

JGI ITTER PD31 GRAY PILE PSHUTTLEl'lORTH DOCKET NO(S).5O 3]6/3j6

SUBJECT:

DC COOK

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

DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT -"

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

Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Notice of Issuance of Environmental Assessment Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License or Amendment to Facility,Operating License Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses S

P

(

31123 Involvin No Si nificant Hazards'Conditions

'ee Page(sl Exemption i ~

- 'ATED 7 26 89 Construction, Permit No. CPPR-

, facility Operating License No.

'rder Monthly Operating Report for Annual/Semi-Annual Report:

Other Amendment No.

,Amendment, No.

transmitted by Letter transmitted by Letter.',

Enclosures:

As Stated Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation PROJECT DIRECTORATE III-1 SIVISION OF REACTOR PROJECTS-III, IV, V 8t SPECIAL PROJECTS CC A/PD31: DRSP OFFICE%

SURNAME~ HUTTLEWORTH 8/16/89

'ATE>

NRC FORM 318 t10/80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

'E

yotttaal ttsttlstst Ool ttL Ntc iso / ttysdussdsy.

July SL0 / Notices NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACILITYOPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZlVUlSCONSIDERATION DETERMINATIONAND OPPORTUN1TY FOR HEAIUNG The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the fadlityin accordance with the proposed amendments would aot (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 ofaccident from ariy accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The bash for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

The Commission h seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within30 days after the date of publication of this notice wQI be considered in middng any final determhiation.'Ihe Commissioa win not normaBy make a final determination unless itreceives a request for a hearing:

Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulatory Publications Branch, Division ofFreedom of Information and Pubucations Services, Office of Administration and Resources Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC 20555.

and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room P-216, Philups Building, 1920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room. the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

'ashington, DC The filingofrequests vfor hearing aadpetitiaias forhave to intervene is discussedbe)ow.

By August 25, 1939, the licensee may filea request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the

-,subject faduty operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding aad who wishes toParticipate as a party in the proceeding must file iwritten petition for leave to intervene. Requests fora hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's "Rules of Practice forDomestic Liceasiag Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. Ifa request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety aad Licensiag Board. designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the AtomicSafety 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.

As required by 10 CFR 2.TI4, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted withparticular 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, finandal. 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) ofthe 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 specifidty requirements described above.

Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding. a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A

S1098 'ederal Rer

/ Vol 94, No. 142 / Wednesday, Jul, 1969 / Notices petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention willnot be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become arties to the proceeding, subject to any tations 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.

Ifa hearing is requested, the Commission willmake a final determination on the issue of no 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 itimmediately 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 amendment.

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

However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure

'o act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period.

provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination willconsider all public and State comments received before action is taken, Should the Commission take this action, itwill publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after',

issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action willoccur very infrequently.

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, 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 promptly so inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 3254000 (in Mssouri 1-(800) 3424700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the followingmessage addressed to (Proj ect Director)i petitioner's name and telephone number, date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to the attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings ofpetitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing willnot be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officeror the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing.

'oard.

that the petition and/or request

'hould be granted basedepon a

ba)ancing offactors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714[d):

For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is aval)able for public 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.

Arkansas Power tk Light Company, Docket No. 6M13, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, Pope County, Arkansas Dote ofamendment request:

December 18, 1988 Description ofamendment request:

This amendment would modify the Technical Specifications (TS) related to fire barriers. The modifications include the following: (1) the title of Sections 3.21 and 4.24 are changed from penetr'ation fire barriers to fire barriers and the terms functional and intact are changed to Operable; (2) Sections 3.21 and 3.21.1 are changed to indicate that these TS cover barriers for both separation of safety-related fire areas and separation ofredundant safe shutdown systems required in the event of a fire; (3) Section 3.21.3 is changed to address the applicability ofTS 3.0.3 and 3.0.4 for clariTication; (4) Section 4.24.1 is modified for clarification: (5) Section 4.24.1.b is added to require the performance of a visual inspection of fire doors and fire dampers once per 18 months; (6) Section 4.24.1;c is added to require that ten percent of each type of sealed penetration be inspected at least once per 18 months and that all penetration seals be inspected once per 15 years. For each of the above changes, appropriate changes to the TS Bases have been made.

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, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)has reviewed the proposed change and has determined that:

Thc proposed change to the title of Sectfons 3W, 4W and the Bases. and the use of the term "OPEIMBLE"instead of functional or Intect do not involve a sfgiifficanthazards consideration because operation ofArkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 in accordance with this change would nou (1) Involve a signflicant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

The proposed change would noi increase the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated since this edmfnfstraifvc change does not provide any relief from the requirements of the Technical Specifications. or change the intended operation or administrative rcqufrcmcnts of the plant or iis design bases.

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

The proposed change would not crcafc the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed since this admlnfittratfvc change does not adversely affect any components or systems which contribute io the safety of the pltint.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

The proposed change would not involve c significant reduction fn the margin of safely since this change has no effect on any plant safety paramctcr'll, accident mitigation ccpabifftics, or procedures.

The proposed changes io Sections 3,21 and 3.21.1 cnd their corresponding Bases do not fnvofvc c significant hazards consideration because operation ofArkansas Nuclear Ooc, Unit 1 fn accordance with this change would not:

(1) Involve c significant increase In ihc probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

The proposed change would increase the scope of thie Tcchnical Specificciion io specifically include Ifrc barriers separating both safety related fire areati as well as redundant safe shutdown systems required fn the event of'a fire. As this change increases the scope ot this Technical SpccfAcatfon fi would not increase the probability or

Federal Reghte Vol. 54, No.'142 / Wethtesday, fttly 2

/ Notices

'1099 consequences ofany accident previously evaluated.

(2) Create the possibiiftyofa new or different kind of accident from any

. previously analyzed.

The Eire barriers requb ed by this Specification restrict the s pread ofEire io safety-related Eire areas and redundant trains of safe shutdown equipment.'Ibis change does not add any new plant fire bamers, it only enlarges the scope of the fire barriers covered by Technical Specifications.

~

Therefore, increasing the scope ofthe Specification willnot create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident Ann any previously analyze*

(3) Involve a sigidficant reduction in the margin of safety.

The existing Technical SpeciTication requirements are not reduced by &ischange.

instead the requirements are increased and the only possible effect on the margin of safety is to increase it.

The proposed change to Section 3M.2 and its corresponding Bases does not involve a significant hazards consideration because operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 in accordance with this change would not:

(1) Involve a sigidficant increase In the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

The proposed change would add an additional requirement when compensating for an inoperable Eire barrier. As this change does not increase the probability of a fire it would not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

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

This change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed as the new method of compensating for an inoperable fire barrier serves the same purpose as the old method of compensation.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

'his change willstill provide the seine level of confidence that an undetected fire willnot spread beyond the Specification Eire barriers. Therefore. there is not a signiTicant reduction in a margin of safety.

This proposed change to the surveillance requirements in Section 4.24.1 of the Arkansas Nuclear One. Unit 1 Technical Specifications does not involve a significant hazards consideration as it would not:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

Although the charge does increase the interval between surveillances of the individual peretrations. the visual surveillance of the overall barrier willstill be

'erformed at the same 18 month interval.

Therefore, this change maintains conservative restrictions on the surveillance of the affected fire barriers and does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

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

This change increases the number of bamera covered by this survefuance.%tie fnterval forinspection ofindividual penetrations is lengthened. However, a representative sample ofeach type of penetration is still examined at the previous 18 month surveillance interval and thus the integrity of the Eire barriers ls still assured.

Therefore this change does riot create the

~

possibility ofa new or different kind of accident tram any previously analyzed.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin ofsafety.

Tlds change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety: rather. it constitutes an additional limitation, restriction or control not presently included in the Technical Specifications as additional fire barriers are covered by tfds Technical Specification. The lengthening of the individual penetration seal surveillance Interval is adequately compensated forby the surveillance of a representative sample of penetration seals.

The staff has reviewed Apg L'szto significant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the ana)ysis. Therefore the staff proposes to determine that the app)feat(on for amendment involves no sigtdftcant hazards considerations.

Local Public Document Room location: Tamlinson Library, Arkansas Tech University, Russellvilie. Arkansas 72801 Attorneyforlicensee: Nicholas S.

Reynolds, Esq., Bishop. Cook, PurceL Ik Reynolds. 1400 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20005-3502 NRC Project Director. Frederick J.

Hebdon Arkansas Power Ik Light Company, Docket No. SM1$, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, Pope County, Arkansas Date ofamendment request: June 13, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would add a note to the Techidcai Specificatlons (TS) to clarify the meaning ofTS 3.4.1.4 regarding the turbine driven emerge'ncy feedwater (EFW) pump operability determination prior to heating the reactor coolant system above 280'.

Basis farprapased na significant hazards cansideratian determination:

The proposed change to the TS would provide an unambiguous requirement to perform a limited test of the turbine driven emergency feedwater pump with available steam pressure to demonstrate the functionality of the pump prior to heating the reactor coolant system above 280'. This test would require meeting all of the performance criteria of the surveillance test specified by TS 4.8.1(a)1., except the minimum discharge pressure and flow, which can be achieved only with normal operating secondary system steam pressure, This test requirement is marezestrfctfve than

'- past licensee interpretations of this TS.

which held that a functional test could be performed only at fuu steam pressure in order to meet the discharge pressure and flowcriteria. Therefore, this change

, represents an additional requirement

- which enhances the safe operation of the plant by providing further assurance ofthe availability of the turbine driven EFW pump prior to heatup.

The Commission has provided guidance for Ihe application of criteria for no sifpdftcant hazards consideration determination by providing examples of amendments that are considered not likelyto involve significant hazards considerations (51 FR 7751). These examples include: Example (fi),a change that constitutes an additional limitation.

restriction, or control not presently included in the Technical Specifications:

e.g, "a more stringent surveillance'equirement."

The new requirement to perform a functional test of the turbine driven EFW pump prior to heating the reactor coolant system above 280' constitutes an additional limitation, restriction, and control not presently included in the Technical Specifications. Therefore. the proposed amendment is within the scope of the example.

Since the application for amendment involves a proposed change that is encompassed by an example for which no slgniifiicant hazards consideration exists, the staff has made a proposed determination that the application involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Dacument Room location: Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Tech University. Russeliviile. Arkansas 72801 Attorneyforlicensee: Nicholas S.

Reynolds, Esq., Bishop. Cook. Purceii. Ik Reynolds, 1400 L Street. NW.,

Washington. DC 20005-3502 NRC Praject Director: Frederick J.

'ebdon Arkansas Power Ik Light Company, Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Pope County, Arkansas Dote ofamendment request:

December 16, 1988 Description ofamendment request:

This amendment would modify the Technical Specifications (TS) related ta fire barriers. The modifications include the fo))owing: (1) the title of Section 3/

4.7.11 is changed from penetration fire barriers to fire barriers and the terms functional and intact are changed to Operable: (2) Section 3.7.11 is changed to indicate that the TS covers barriers for both separation ofsafety-related fire

Fedesai RtNer / VoL 64, No. 142 / Wednesday, /u6, 1662 / Notloes areas and saparadon ofredundant safe shutdown systems required in the event

- of a fire; (3) Section 3.7.11.a is changed by adding the option to verify the operability of fire detectors with the.

control room alarm on at least one side of the affected barrier with an hourly fire watch; (4) Section 4.7.11 is changed for ciarification; (5) Section 4.7,11,c is added to require the performance of a visual inspection of fire doors and fire dampers once per 18 months; (8) Section 4,7.11.d is added to require that ten percent of each type ofsealed penetration be inspected at least once each 18 months and that all penetration seals be inspected once per 15 years. For each of the above changes, appropriate changes to the TS Bases for Section 3/

4:/,11 have been made.

Ba<<i<< forpropos<<dno <<ignificant ha<<an& aon<<ld<<rrrtian determinatiorL The CommIssintt has provfdad standards in 10 CPR 50.92(c) for detersniidng whether a <<ignifioant hazards oonsideration exists. A pniposed amendment to en 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 ofan accident previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Arkansas Power and Light Company (ApgiL)has reviewed the proposed change and has determined that:

The proposed change to the title ofSecUon 3.4.7.11 and the Bases, and the use of the term OPERABLE instead of functional or intact does not involve a significant hazards consideration because operaUon of Arkansas Nuclear One, Urdt 2 in accordance with this

'hange would not:

(1) Involve a significant hcrease In the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyxed.

The proposed change would not hcrease the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated since this adndidstrative change does not provide any relief fmm the requirements of the Technical SpectficaUons, or change the htended operation or administradve requirements of the plant or its design bases.

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

The proposed change would not create the posstbfiig of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed since this administrative change does not adversely affect any components or systems which contribute to the safety of the plant.

(3) Involve a significant reducUon in the margh ofsafety.

'Ihe pmposed change wouM not involve a stgrdficant reduction in the margin of safety since this change bas no effect on any plant safety parameters, aocldent mitigation capabilities. or procedures.

The proposed change to Section 3.7.11 and its corresponding Bases does not involve a significant hazards consideration because operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 in accordance with this change would not:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

The proposed change would increase the scope ofthis Technical Specificadon to specifically include fire baniers separating both safety-related fire areas as well as redundant safe shutdown systems required in the event ofa fire. As this change increases the scope of this Technical Specificadon it would not increase the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

(2) Create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from any prevIously analyzed.

The Are baniers required by this Spe/dfioation restrict the epn.ed of fire to safetyeehted Ate areas and redundant trains of safe shutdown equipment. This change does not add any new plant fire barriers. it only enlarges the scope of the fire barriers covered by Technical SpectficaUons.

Therefore, hcreasing the scope of the Spectficadon willnot create the possibility of a new or different kind of aocident from any previously analyzed.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in the margh of safety.

The existing Technical Specification requirements are not reduced by this change, Instead the requirements are hcreased and the only possible effect on the margin of safety is to increase it.

The proposed change to Section 3.7.11.a and its conespondhg Bases does not hvolve a significant hazards consideration because operation ofArkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 in accordance with this change would not:

(1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously analyzed.

The proposed change would add an addidonal method of compensating for an inoperable fire banter. As this change does not increase the probability of a fire itwould not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

(2) Create the posstbUIty of a new or different kind of aciddent fmm any previously analyxed.

This change does not create the possibility of a new or different khd of accident from any previously analyzed as the new method of compensating for an inoperable fire barrier serves the same purpose as the old method of compensation.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

This change willstill provide the same level of confidence that a undetected fire will not spread beyond the SpecificaUon fire barriers. Therefore, there is not a significant reduction in a margh of safety.

This proposed change to the surveillance requirements in Section 4.7.11 of the Arkaasas Nudum One. Unit 2 Techrdcai Specifications does not involve a significant'azards consideration as it would not:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed Although the change does increase the interval between surveillances of the individual penetrations, the visual surveillance of the overall barrier willstill be performed at the same 18 month interval.

~Therefore. this change maintains conservative restrictions on the surveillance of the affected fire barriers and does not

, involve a significant Increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

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

This change increases the number of barriers covered by this surveillance. The interval for inspection of individual penetrations is lengthened. However, a representaUve sample of each type of penetration ls still examined at the previous 18 month surveillance interval and thus the Integrity of the fire barriers ls stfil assured.

Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

This change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin ofsafety; rather, it constitutes an additional limitation, restriction or control not presently included in the Technical Specifications as additional fire barriers are covered by this Technical Specification. The lengthening of the individual penetration seal surveillance interval is adequately compensated for by the surveillance of a representative sample of penetrations seals.

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

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

Attorneyforlicensee: Nicholas S.

Reynolds. Esq.. Bishop, Cook, Purcell 84 Reynolds, 1400 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20005-3502 NRC Project Director. Frederick J.

Hebdon Arkansas Power tk Light Company, Docket No. 50-388, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Pope County, Arkansas Dote ofamendment request: June 13, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

This amendment would change the Technical Specifications (TS) for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 by deleting TS Section 4.3.1,1.4 which contains the surveillance reqidrements

s yederal RagbagVol oa, No..lao /.Wedueeday, July 288

/ Nodose

,;;".forthe existing Core Protection Calculator (CPC) isolation equipment.

Arkansas Power and Light (AP5JL) is Presently in the process ofreplacing part of the hardware in the ANO-2 Core Protection Calculator System. This effort is scheduled for completion during the upcoming 2R7 refueling outage.

presently scheduled to begin in September ofthis year. A portion ofthe hardware upgrade includes new fiber optics devices to provide interchannel isolation for the CPC/Core Element Assembly Calculator (CEAC) data links and the CEA position isolation amp)ifiers. The use of fiber optics equipment for data transmission offers superior isolation capabilities compared to the existing system, which uses conductive wiring.and optical isolators to achieve the required channel lip)ation. Technical SpeciTication 4.3.1.1.4 contains the surveillance requirements for the speciTic isolation equipment in the existing CPCS hardware. Testing of the new devices in accordance with the existing TS is neither necessary nor practical, as the new equipment uses non-conducting fiber optics cable. The existing TS will no longer be appropriate upon completion of the CPCS upgrade and is therefore proposed to be removed.

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 Facility involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a signiTicant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The licensee reviewed the proposed change and determined that:

(1) The proposed amendment does not involves a significant increase In the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change would not alter the probability of any previously analyzed accident occurring. The proposed change simply deletes a surveillance requirement which is nc longer applicable for the equipment installed in the plant. This willnot impact the accident. initiating events described in Chapter 15 of the ANO-2 SAR.

Further. the proposed change willnot adversely affect the consequences of accidents which have been previously evaluated. The proposed change simply reflects the upgrading of hardware in a plant protection systmn. which should hicrease the,, SpecHication 3.WA.'Xhe change would system re)iabIIItyand therefore increase <<

increase the maximmn allowable ability to mitigate the consequences of individual Full length CEA drop time postulated accidents.

(2) The proposed amendment does not create <<possibflity of a new or differen seconds, and would sPecify a maximum kfnd pfaccident from any Previously arithmetic average ofall fulllength CEA evaluate*

':drop times'of Mseconds. The proposed The equipment upgrade associated with the changes are based on analyses proposed change willnot change the overall Performed by Combustion Engineering design and protection system function of the which demonstrate that CEA drop time CPCS, and the new hardware serves ihe testmg acceptance criteria based on same purpose as thc hardware It replaces; average drop times, rather than on the therefore, the propotied change wIIInot cre te slowest individual CEA drop time, are the possibility of a new or different ldnd of accident. Theproposcd change simply e lually conservative deletes a surveillance requirement which Is Basis forproposed no significant no longer appropriate for the specific hazards consideration determination:

equipment associated with the CPCS The Commission has prpilded hardware replacement. The new equipment standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c) for offers superior isolation performance snd determhing whether a significant hazards consideration exists. A involve a s~cmt reduction I <<~~

ProPosed amendment to an OPerating (3) The proposed emendmcnt does not License for a facilityinvolves no Thc proposed change Is associated with significant hazards consIderation if replacement hardware which willimprove operation of the facilityin accordance system reliability, and therefore improve with the proposed amendment would overall safety margins. The CPCS wIIIhave at not: (1) involve a significant increase in least the same capabilities to mitigate the probability or consequences of an accidents as It had prior to <<hardware accident previously evaluated, (2) create upgrade. as the system software. end the possibility of a new or different kind therefore. the Protection system function, wi0 faccident from any accident previous]y remain unchanged. The hardware change goes not change <<ovcral) design baste for evaluated, or (3) involve a significant any function of the CPCS equipmcnt.

reduction in a margin of safety.

Based on the previous discussion, the Arkansas Power and Light ComPany licensee concluded that the proposed (AP8L) has reviewed the proposed amendment request does not involve a change and has determined that:

significant increase in the probability pf (1) The proposed amcndmcnt does not a new or different kind of accident from Involve a significant increase in the any accident previously evaluated; npr Probability or consequences of an accident involve a significant reduction in the previously evaluated. The proposed changes required margin ofsafety. The NRC sta ff to <<CEA drop time requirements have been has reviewed the licensee's no evaluated for Impact on the ANO-2 accident significant hazards considerations determination and agrees with the performance and no physical changes. The licensee's analysis. The staff has, CEA drop time acceptance criteria are used therefore, made a proposed to develop trip reactivity insertion rates determination that the licensee's request which are in turn used as inputs to the does not involve a significant hazards accident analyses.

consideration.

The Combustion Engineering analyses have Local Public Document Room demonstrated that the calculated trip location: Tomlinson Library, Arkansas reactivity for a distributed CEA drop pattern Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas is the same as the trip reactivity calculated 72801 for thc unrealistic non.distributed pattern Attorneyforlicensee: Nicholas S.

currcntlv assumed. Since the trip reactivity Reynolds, Esq., Bishop, Cook, Purcell g assumed In the accident analyses is not Reynolds. 1400 L Street. NW.,

adversely impacted by consideration of a Washington. DC 20005-3502 distributed CEA droP Pattern, the ProPosed NRC Project Director: Frederick ).

limits willnot increase the ProbabilitY or Hebdon consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Arkansas Power tk Light Company, (2) The proposed arncndmcnt does not Docket No.59-388, Arkansas Nuclear created the possibility of c new or diffcrcnt One Unit 2 pppe CpuntiJ Arkansas kind of cccidcnt from any previously evaluated. The proposed change does not Date ofamendment request: June

~

Involve any new or modified structures.

1989 systems or components; rather. It affects only Description ofamendment request:

an acceptance criteria for confirming the The proposed amendment willmodify required performance of the existing CEA the control element assembly (CEA) hardware. Therefore, the proposed change drop time requirements of Technical would not create the possibility of c new or

yederet ter / VoL.94, No. 142 / Wednesday, /29, 1929 / Nottoes different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.'3)

The proposed amendment does not Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The margins of safety related to CEA insertion are defined by the analyzed events in the Safety Analysis Report which credit the fnsertfon. As demonstrated in Criterion 1 above. the proposed limits on CEA drop time have no adverse impact on the accident analyses. Therefore, the margins of safety reflected in the accident analysis conclusions are not reduced.

'Ihe Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of standards for determining whether a signiflcant hazards consideration exists. This gufdance includes examples (Si FR 77M) of types of amendments that are considered not likelyto involve sfgnffioant hazards considerations.

'Ihe change proposed in this amendment fs not directly comparable to any of the examples Identified in 51 FR 7750.

Based on the previous discussion, the licensee conchtded that the proposed amendment request does not involve a s~icant increase In the probability of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; nor involve a significant reduction in the required margin ofsafety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards considerations determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis. The staff has,'herefore, made a proposed determination that the licensee's request does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

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

Reynolds, Esq., Bishop, Cook, Purcell 8t Reynolds, 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 200054502 NRC Project Director. Frederick J.

Hebdon Carolina Power fk Light Company, ot al Docket Nos. M425 and 504?4 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unite 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina Date ofopplication foramendment:

Februa~ 15, 1989 Description ofamendment request/

'Ihe amendments would revise the descripfion ofAction 23 associated with Table 3.3.2-1, Isolation Actuation Instrumentation, to differentiate between the actions to be taken in Operational Conditions 1, 2, and 3 and

~

the actions to be taken for Operational Conditions 5 and '. Presently. Action 23 states for Operational Conditions 1, 2, 3, 5, and ', "Establish SECONDARY CONTAINMENTINTEGRITYwith the standby gas treatment system operating within one hour."

Basis forproposed no significant hazards considerotion determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a no signiTicant 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 significan increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

~

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

The licensee provided the following analysis to show that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazard consideration:

1. Action 23 associated with Table ~1 of the Technioal Speclflcstions currently does not provide alternative actions for Operational Conditions 5 and 'hen secondary containment integrity with the standby gas treatment system operatfng cannot be achieved.

The proposed requirement to establish secondary containment integrity with the standby gas treatment system operating when the unit is in Operational Conditions 5 and 'illenhance protection for the health

= and safety of the public in the event of a fuel handling accident. Currently. ifAction 23 cannot be met. several actions may be taken depending upon the circumstances.

Ifthe standby gas treatment system cannot operate, Technical Specification 3.6.6.1, which requfies immediate suspension of fuel haudlirtg ifboth subsystems of the standby gas treatment system are inoperable, would be invoked. Ifthe secondary containment fntefpity cannot be maintained, Technical Specification 3.8.5.1. which requires suspension of fuel handling ifsecondaiy containment integrity cannot be established within8 hours, applies.

The proposed change willrequire suspension of fuel handling within one hour if secondary containment integrity cannot be maintained, which is more restrictive than Technical Specification 3.6.5.1. Ifthe standby gas treatment system cannot operate. the more restrictive requirements of Technical Specificatfon 3.6.6.1 willstill apply.

By suspending fuel handling within one hour ifsecondary containment integrity cannot be established with the standby gss treatment system operating. the potential for a fuel handling accident that could affect the health and safety of the public is reduced. No other accidents are affected. Therefore. the proposed change decreases the probability of an accident.

The consequences of a fuel handling accident remain unchanged because the fuel handling accident scenario does noi change.

Ordy the time in which a fuel handling

'accident could occur while secondary containment is not maintsinttd is reduced from 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months . thereby impacting only the probability of an accident.

2. The additional requirement does not impact how the secondary containment performs its function. It only adds a requirement which willprovide additional assurance that the health and ssfetv of the public are maintained ifa fuel handling accident were to occur. Thus, no new or different accident possibilities are created.

3. The proposed change provides additional assurance that the health and safety of the public are maintained in the event secondary containment integrity with the standby gas treatment system operating in Operational Conditions 5 end 'annot be achieved.

Currently. fuel handling would be suspended within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months ifsecondary containment integrity cannot be maintained, and immediately ifthe standby gas treatment system cannot operate. Thus. the proposed amendment increases the margin of safety if secondary containment integrity cannot be maintained, and maintains the current margin of safety ifthe standby gas treatment system cannot operate.

The licensee has concluded that the proposed amendment meets the three standards in 10 CFR 50.92 and, therefore, involves no signiTicant hazards consideration, The NRC staff has made a preliminary review of the licensee's no significant hazaRs consideration determination.

The licensee addressed the three standards and appears to have met them. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the requested amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room locatioru University ofNorth Carolina at Wilmington. WilliamMadison Randall Library, 801 S. College Road, Wilmington. North Carolina 28403.3297.

Attorneyforlicensee: R. E. Jones, General Counsel, Carolina Power fk Light Company. P. O. Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27802 NRC Project Director: Elinor G.

Adensam Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. I-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois;Docket Nos.

50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois Date ofapplicotion foramendment request: June 12, 1989 Description ofomendment request:

The proposed amendment identified "inhalation" as the most limiting pathway. with the "childs" thyroid as the critical organ for radiation doses, and restricts the radiation dose to less than or equal to 1500 mrem/year. The proposed amendment changes the Technical Specifications Bases.

Paragraph 3.8.A.1 (DPR-19 tft DPR-25) and Paragraph 3.8/4.8.A.1 (DRP.29 &

Federal R VoL 54i No, 142 / %wednesday, July 1989 / Notices

',- DPR-'30), to be more restrictive and consistent withNUREG-0473.

Current Technical Specifications restrict release rates to less than or equal to 1500 mrem/year thyroid dose rate above background to an infant via

,the cow-miBi-infani pathway. The p-.opo ed Technical SpeciGcatiors retain the dose rate of 1'cc mrem/year, however, the cr'.tical receptor is a child via the inhale:inn pathway in I!eu cf an infant via t!ie cow-mi!k-infant pa.hway.

Basis forproposed na sfgnijicant hazards r:onsideration determh a" 'anr The change in the Tecludcal Specifications has been evaluated against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 andhas been determined not to involve a signiflcant hazards consideration because:

1. The proposed change does not involve any relaxation of established safety limits, limitingsafety system settings, or limitingconditions for operations. The proposed amendment revises the pathway for calculation of restricting dose rates to a more limiting receptor pathway, i.e. child inhalation.

This change does not involve any accident precursor and. therefore, does not increase the probability of an accident. In addition, NUREG 0473, Revision 3 Draft 7 has identified the child inhalation pathway as a more limitingreceptor pathway and, therefore. the use of a more limiting receptor for dose calculation does not increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. The proposed amendment changes the pathway for calculating the restricted dose rate, and allows for a change in the computer model for dose calculation. The change to the dose calculation model does not involve a change in safety limits, limitingsafety system settings, or limitingconditions for operation. Therefore, it does not create any new or different kind of accident than previously evaluated.

3. The proposed amendment changes the receptor pathway to a more limiting case, i.e. child inhalation, thereby.

creating a more conservative dose calculation. The use of a more limiting receptor pathway does not reduce the margin of safety.

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

, application involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room Incationr Morris Public Library, 604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois60450 (Dresden), and Dixon Public Library. 221 Hennepin Avenue, Dixon, Illinois81021 (Qtiad Cities).

Attorneyforlicensee: Michael L Miller,Esquire; Sidley and Austin, One First National Plaza, Chicago. Iuinois 60663.

NRC Actr'ngProject Directatr Paul.C.

Shemanski Commcnwoalth Edison Company, Docket Nes. 50-295 and 5M04, Zion Nuclear Power Station, UnitNos. 1 and 2, Lake County, Illinois Date cfapplication foramendments:

tune 2, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment request willmodify Section 4.3, Reactor Coolant System, of the Technical Specifications for Zion Station. Itwillallow Zion Station's steam generator tubes to be repaired, if needed, by utilizing the Bechtel-KWU Alliance sleeving methodology. The existing Technical Specifications have been previously separately amended to permit utilization of the Combustion Engineering (CE) and the Westinghouse (WE) processes for steam generator tube sleeving. The addition of the Bechtel-KWUAlliance methodology as an approved alternative repair method would provide Zion with the flexibility necessary to continue with the philosophy ofusing an integrated refueling outage coordination.

Basis forproposed na significant hazards consideration determination:

The staff has evaluated this proposed amendment and determined that it involves no signiflcant hazards consideration. According to 10 CFR 50.92(c), a proposed amendment to an operating license involves no signiflcant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of ap 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 Commonwealth Edison Company (the licensee) provided the following discussion regarding each of the above criteria for no significant hazards consideration determination.

DISCUSSION - ITEM1 The creation of the option to utilize the Bechtel-KWU Alliance welded sleeve process to repair a defective steam generator tube has no effect on either the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

As discussed in Bechtel-KWU Alliance report, BKATM-P.Revision 1. the integrity of the steam generator tubes willbe equivalent to that of an original tube, or a tube sleeved by the NRG-approved CE or WE processes. The continued integrity of the sleeves willbe verified by the inspection program required as a result of this change.

Thus, since the structural integrity of the tubes willnot be adversely affected by this change, there is no increase in the probability ofan accident previously evaluated, Specifically, the probability of a steam generator tube rupture willbe unaltered.

In addition. the steam generator will remain capable of performing its required heat transfer function. The information provided in Section 4.3.5 of BKAT<1-P, Revision 1 demonstrates that the sleeve-induced primary flow reduction resulting from the use of a Bechtel.KWU Alliance sleeve is comparable to the currently, approved WE or CE processes. As a result, the choice to install a Bechtel-KWU Alliance sleeve, as opposed to a WE or CE sleeve, willhave no significant effect on the steam generator's heat transfer ability.

The sleeving process willallow a repaired steam generator tube to remain in service, rather than completely blocking the tube's flowwith plugs.

Thus, the act of placing a sleeve in a steam generator tube actually results in a more efficient steam generator relative to plugging the tube.

Based upon the above discussion, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated willbe unaffected because the heat transfer capability of the steam generators willnot be signiTicantly altered.

DISCUSSION-ITEMZ As discussed above, both the structural integrity and the heat transfer capability of Zion steam generators will not be significantly affected by the use of the Bechtel-KWU Alliance welded sleeve process instead of the WE or CE sleeve processes. In addition. the steam generator tube sleeves do not interact with any other of Zion's systems. The ability ofZion's safety systems to perform their function willnot be altered. Thus, there is no potential for a new or different kind ofaccident due to the use of the Bechtel-KWU sleeving process to repair Zion's steam generators.

DISCUSSION - ITEM3 The heat transfer capabilities of Zion's steam generators willnot be signiTicantly altered through the utilization of Bechtel-KWU Alliance welded sleeves as opposed to the currently approved WE or CE sleeves. In general, the sleeving process, whether the Bechtel-KWU Alliance. WE. or CE processes are utilized, results in a more

3X104 Federal Regis er / Vo). 54, No. 142 / Vttednesday, July o, 1989 / Notices efficient steam generator when compared to the plugging alternative.

As discussed above and in BKATM-P, Revision 1, the structural integrity of the steam generator tubes willbe unaltered. Use of the Bechtel-KWU Alliance, WE, or CE aleeving processes willproduce a primary system boundary with the appropriate integrity.

Since both the structural integrity and the heat transfer capability of Zion's steam generators willnot be significantly altered by the choice of sleeving processes, the margin of safety willnot be affected.

Therefore, since the application for amendment satisfies the criteria specified in 10 CFR 50,92, Commonwealth Edison Company made a determination that the application involves no significant hazards consideration.

Afterpreliminary review of licensee's submittal. the staff agrees with licensee's overall conclusion.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications involve no significant hazards consideration.

LocalPublic Document Room location: Waukegan Public Library, 128 N. County Street. Waukegan, Illinois 60085.

Attorney to licensee: Michael L Miller, Esquire; Sidley and Austin, One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois60603.

NRC Pleat Director: Paul C.

Shemanski, Acting Director Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

~

Company, Docket No. 50-213, Haddam Neck Plant, Middlesex County, Connecticut; Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et aL, Docket Nos. 50-245 and 50-335, Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos, 1 and 2, New London County, Connecticut Date ofamendment request: April25, 1989 as supplemented June 28, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendments would change Technical Specification Sections 6.12, "High Radiation Area," for

'addam Neck and Millstone Unit 2 plants and TS Section 8.13, "High Radiation Area," for Millstone Unit 1 plant by (1) defining the dose rate as

'easured at 45 cm (18 inches) from the source, (2)'increasing the Radiation Work Permit requirements for entry into locked High Radiation Areas with dose rates greater than 1000 mR/h by requiring maximum stay time limits or continuous surveillance, (3) allowing an alternative to enclosing and locking large areas with dose rates less than 1000 mR/h and in which an enclosure cannot be reasonably constructed and (4) define locked High Radiation Areas as those with dose rates greater than 1000 mR/h at 18 inches from the radiation source.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinatiam The licensee has reviewed the proposed changes in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92 and has concluded and the staff agrees that they do not involve a significant hazards consideration in that these changes would not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence of an accident previously analyzed. These changes are consistent with NRC Standard Technical Specification guidance and Information Notice 88.79. The licensee's current practice of specifying the measurement distance reduces the possibility of overexposure. The proposed change would specify this practice in the Technical Specifications. The proposed change also increases the requirements for entry into locked high radiation areas. Since there are no changes to the way the plant is operated, the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously analyzed is not increased.

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed. The change allows an alternative to enclosing and locking large areas with dose rate greater than 1000 mR/h and in which an enclosure cannot be reasonably constructed, It allows the use of barricades. Postings, and flashing lights. The proposed change would incorporate the current practice of specifying tbe measurement distance from the radiation source to determine dose rates. The change would also increase requirements for entry into locked high radiation areas. 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 would be introduced.

3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. Since the proposed changes do not affect the consequences of any accident previously analyzed, there is no reduction In the margin of safety. The change increases Radiation Work Permit requirements for entry into. locked High Radiation Areas with dose rates greater than 1000 mR/h by requiring maximum stay time limits or continuous surveillance. In past practice, dose rates for High Radiation Areas (unlockedl were defined as greater than 100 mR/h but less than 1000 mR/h in contact with the radiation source. As proposed. each High Radiation Area, as defined In 10 CFR Part 20, in which the intensity of radiation is equal to or less than 1000 mR/h would be measured at 18 inches from the radiation source. The proposed changes would additionally define locked High Radiation Areas as those with dose ratesgreater than1000mR/h at18 inches from the radiation source. The proposed change would incorporate the current practice of specifying the measurement from the radiation source to determine dose rates.

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

Local Public Document Room locatiom Russell Library, 123 Broad Street, Middletown, Connecticut 06457 and Waterford Public Library, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut 00385.

Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Garfield, Esquire, Day, Berry 5: Howard, Counselors at Law, City Place, Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499.

NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Docket No. 50-213, Haddam Neck Plant, Middlesex County, Connecticut and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et alDocket Nos. 50-245/338/423, Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1,2 and 3, New London County, Connecticut Date ofamendment requests May 25, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendments willchange the Technical Specifications (TS) as follows:

1. Sections 6,10.2.m (Haddam Neck, Millstone Unit Nos. 1 and 2) and 6.10.3 (Miflstone Unit No. 3) are being added to the Records Retention section. This section requires lifetime retention of records of reviews performed for changes made to the Radiological Effluent Monitoring and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (REMODCM) and the Process Control Program (PCP).

2. Sections 6.17 (Haddam Neck), 6.15 (Millstone Unit Nos. 1 and 2). and 6.13 (Millstone Unit No. 3) are being changed to simplify the administrative controls for making changes to the Radiological Effluent Monitoring Manual (REMM).

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

On January 31. 1989, the NRC issued Generic Letter (GL) 89.01, "Implementation of Programmatic Controls for Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications in the Administrative Controls Section of the Technical Specifications and the Relocation of Procedural Details or RETS to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual or to the Process Control Program."

The purpose of GL 89-01 was to provide model TS which simplify the administrate requirements for effluent monitoring programs. The application for license amendments dated May 25, 1989 specifically addresses changes to the REMM and record retention for the REMODCM and the PCP and conforms to the guidance in GL 8941. The TS associated with other elements of the effluent monitoring programs willbe addressed separately. at a future date.

yedssei Regis VoL M. No. 1SZ / Wednesday, jolyrglnen / Nodose

, The licensees have reviewed the.

proposed changes in accordance with10 CFR 50.92 and have concIuded and the staff agrees that they do not involve a significant hazards consideration in that these changes would not:

1. Involve a significant hcreese h the probability ofoccmrence or conseqijence's of an accident previously analyzed. These changes are consistent with NRC Generic letter 8&at which furthers the NRCs goal as stated fn.the Commission Policy Statement forTcchnical SpeciQcation Improvements.

Since there are no changes In the way the plant is operated, the probability of occurrence or consequences ofan accident preitously analyzed is not increased.

2. Create the possihi!Ity ofa new cr different kind of accident from any previously analyzed. The proposed changes simplifythe administrative controls for changes to the REMM. Since there are no changes in the way the plant is operated, the potential fcran unana!yzed accident Is not created. No new failure modes are introduced.

3. Involve a signLqcant reduction in the margin of safety. Since the proposed changes do not affect the consequences of any accident previously analyzed, there is no reduction In the margin of safety.

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

Local Public Document Room location: Russell Library, 123 Broad Street, Middletown, Connecticut 06457 and the Waterford Public Library, 49 Rope Ferry Road. Waterford, Connecticut 06385.

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

NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. SO-269, 50-270 and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Dale ofamendment request: August

14. 1987. as supp! emen ted April22, 1988.

Description ofamendmenl request:

The proposed amendments would change t?:e Oconee Nuclear Station Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.4 to raise the minimum upper surge tank (UST) level from 5 feet to B feet. The level setpoint of 6 feet includes an allowance for instrument error.

The amendment request also includes a revision to the bases ofTS 3.4. The table of emergency feedwater flow vs.

the time required to remove decay heat and reactor coolant pump heat, fol!owing reactor trip from 102% rated power would be revised.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinati on/

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether n no slgniflicant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)) ~ A proposed amendment to an operating Qcense for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards umsideration ifoperation ofthe facility in accord:mce withthe proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a signiTicant increase In the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluaterh or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from

. any accident previously. evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The licensee provided the following discussion regarding the three criteria.

The proposed amendments hcrease the required VST level from 5 feet to an hdicated 6 feet allowing for maximum instrument error. TKs is an Improvement which would assure the availability of the required UST hventmy.'IIierefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant increase In the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

'The proposed amendments involve a change which would increase the required UST level from 5 feet to 6 feet. This change constitutes an additional limitation and restriction which willImpr'ove the margin of safety. The amendments do not hvolve eny

- modiTicatlon in the system design and procedures which would create the possibility of e new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed ainendments are an Improvement in the avat!ability and reliabilityof the water sources for emergency feedwater for decay heat removal and do not involve a significant reduction In a margin of safety.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determiniation and agrees with the

.analysis.

Accordingly, the Commission has made a proposed determination that the proposed amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Oconee County Library, 501 West South Broad Street. Walhalla, South Carolina 29691 Attorneyforlicensee:

J. Michael McGarry, IH. Bishop, Lieberman, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds, 120017th Street, NW.. Washington, DC 20036 NRC Project Director. David B.

Matthews Duquesne Ught Company, Docket Nos.

50434 and 5M', Beaver Va!!ey Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Shippingport, Pennsylvania Dale ofamendment request. June 22,

'989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendments would revise the Technical Specifications of each unit as follows:

(1) Increase the maxhnum service water (Ide. Ohio River water) temperature limitfrom 86' to 90' for Unit 1, and 86 F to 89' forUnit 2; (2) Reduce the required servim water f?ow through the Unit2 rechculation spray heat exchangers from 12,000 gpm to 11,000 gpm.

(3) Replace Figure 3.6-1 regarding qmximum a??owable containment air pressure with a new Figure 3.6-1, developed as a result ofthe study to support change'(1).

(4) For Unit 1, increase the minimum refueling water storage tank (RWST) temperature from 43 F to 45', while the maximum RWST temperature Is specified as 55'.

(5) For Unit 1, increase the peak accident pressure in the containm nt from 36.5 to 40.0 psig, as a result ofthe study to support change (1).

(B) For Unit 1, change the surveillance requirement of the quench spray and recirculation spray pumps to reflect revised allowable margins for pump degradation assumed in the study to support change (1).

Basis forproposed no signi%'cant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a signiflcant hazards consideration exists in accordance with 10 CFR SL92(c). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazard consideration if operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a signiflcant reduction in a margin of safety.

The licensee has re-evaluated previously analyzed accidents. No accidents were determined to be caused by high river water temperature.

Furthermore, the licensee determined that despite the proposed changes to the technical speciflcations, the design requirement of the containment depressurization systems willcontinue to be met, and safety-related equipment which require river water cooling willbe capable of performing their design functions at the increased service water temperature limit. Hence the answer to the first criterion is negative.

There is no hardware, software or operational procedure changes as a result of the proposed amendment.

Hence the answer to the second criterion is also negative.

The proposed amendmcnts do involve slight relaxation of margins of safety.

s S1106 Federal Rettht Vol 54, No. 142 / Wednesday, ln}y 2geg

/ Notices However, the licensee's analysis shows that the safety systems willcontinue to meet design objectives. The relaxation is not significant and the answer Is also negative to the third criterion.

The staff therefore proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards considerations, Local Public Document Room location: B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin Avenue. Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.

Attorreyforlicensee: Gerald Charnoff. Esquire. Jay E. Silberg, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman. Potts 8c Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz Florida Power Corporation, et al.,

Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida Date ofamendment request/ June 12, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

This amendment would change the Technical Specifications (TS) to reflect the updated 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J method for containment leakage testing.

Specifically. the amendment willpermit the use of the mass point method to determine containment leakage, The mass point method has been accepted by the staff as an improved alternate test method for determining containment leakage.

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

The proposed amendment was analyzed with respect to the above three criteria. With respect to the first criterion, the licensee determined that the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed since the TS willcontinue to require surveillance testing in accordance with 10 CFR Part

50. Appendix J. This change willallow the use of Commission-approved methodologies for containment leakage testing that have been incorporated into the regulations for general industry use (53 FR 45890).

With respect to the second criterion, the licensee determined that the proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated since the amendment involves no physical change to the plant, nor any change in plant operating procedures.

With respect to the third criterion, the licensee determined that the proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety since the margin of safety currently provided by the TS remains the same. The proposed amendment still requires containment leakage testing to be performed at the same frequency, per 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, and in accordance with Commission-approved methodologies.

The staff has performed a preliminary evaluation of the licensee's submittal and believes that the criteria of10 CFR 50.92 are met. Therefore, the staff proposes to determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards considerations.

Local Public Document Room location: Crystal River Public Library, 688 N.W. First Avenue, Crystal River, Florida 32829 Attorneyforlicensee: A. H. Stephens, General Counsel, Florida Power Corporation, MAC-ASD, P. 0; Box 14042, St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 NRC Project Director: Herbert N.

Berkow Florida Power Corporation, et al.,

Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida Date ofamendment request: June 12.

1989 Description ofamendment request/

This amendment would add a new Technical Specification that would address the use of hydrogen purge valves for depressurization of the containment. The new specification ensures limited use of the hydrogen purge valves.

Basis forproposed no significant hazords consideration determination:

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

The staff has analyzed the proposed change in light of the above three criteria. With respect to the first criterion, the licensee determined that the proposed change would not increase the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated since this change provides assurance that the hydrogen purge valves are capable of closing during a loss of coolant accident or a steam line break accident within containment, Performance of the proposed surveillance requirements would demonstrate valve operability, thus insuring that off-site dose limits would not be exceeded in the event of an accident during containment purging operations.

With respect to the second criterion.

the licensee determined that the proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated since the proposed change introduces no new mode of plant operation nor does it require a physical modification to the plant.

With respect to the third criterion, the licensee determined that the proposed change would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety since the change adds a restriction on plant operation to ensure time periods with direct access from the containment to the outside atmosphere are minimized.

The staff has performed a preliminary evaluation of the licensee's submittal and believes that the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92 are met. Therefore, the staff proposes to determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards considerations.

Local Public Document Room locotiom Crystal River Public Library.

668 N.W. First Avenue, Crystal River, Florida 32629 Attorneyforlicensee: A. H, Stephens.

General Counsel, Florida Power Corporation, MAC-ASD. P. O. Box 14042, St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 NRC Proj ect Director: Herbert N.

Berkow GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit No. 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania Date ofamendment request: June 13, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

This amendment request includes proposed Technical Specification changes related to 10 CFR 50 Appendix J Local Leakage Rate testing (LLRT)

Federal Register ol. 54, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 3110l including the relocation ofLLRT

~

component and valve lists fromthe T<<hnfcal Specifications to the Updated FSAR. Removal oftabular listings &om the Technical Specifications is an area ofTechnical Specifications Improvement that has been identi(led by the AtomicIndustrial Forum (AIF) and the NRC. Relocation ofthese tabular listings to the Updated FSAR would allow future changes to these lists, as permitted by the regulations, to be made without a license amendment.'his would relieve both the NRC and GPUN of this administrative burden.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration,determinationr GPU Nuclear Corporation has determined that this Technical Specification Change Request poses no significant hazards as defined by the

'NRC in 10 CFR 50.92. This change is considered to be administrative in nature and does not involve significant hazards consideration as evaluated below.

1. Operation ofThree Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit-l,in accordance with this change would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the proposed Technical Specification charge does not modify or create any accident initiating condition. This change provides for update of the list of components subject to 10 CFR 50 Appendix J Type "C" tests to add additional components to the list, improvement in the Technical Speciiications by relocating lists to the FSAR, and deletion of certain test requirements that are not needed to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix J. Deletion of the requirements for Penetration Pressurization System quarterly rotameter readings does not result in changes contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix J or the NRC's Standard Technical Specifications for Babcock and Wilcox Pressurized Water Reactors (NURE~03).

The changes included in this request are either purely administrative in nature or are of minor technical significance and have no significance related to safe plant operation.

(10 CFR 50.92(c)(1))

2. Operation of Three htile Island Nuclear Station, Unit-1. in accordance with this change would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the prnposed Technical Specification change does not modify or create any accident initiating condition. The proposed changes to the LLRTtest requirements in Technical Specifications willresult in technical specification requirements that meet or exceed the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix J.

(10 CFR M92(c)(2))

3. Operation ofThree Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit-1, in accordance with this change would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because ail Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (USAR) assumptions remain unchanged. The proposed changes to the ILRTtest zequtmaents +rillresult hi technical specification requirements that meet or exceed the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix J.Aminor change in the test requirements for the purge valves would not change the test methodology or the acce ptance criteria and would not significantly affect the assurance ofthe early detection ofpurge valve seat degradation and Inoperability because the additional examinations and increased (quarterly) test frequency of the purge valves beyond the

.Appendix J test requirements would be retained. Deletion ofthe requirements for Penetration Pressurization System quarterly zolameter readings Is not discussed in the basis for any TM-1Technical Specification.

Any reduction in test requirements resulting from this change would not significantly affect the timely detection ofcontainment isolation valve or penetration inoperability.

(10 CFR 50.92(c)(3))

'he NRC staff has reviewed the.

licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination and agrees

'ith the licensee's analysis.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room locotiom Government Publications Section, State Library ofPennsylvania, Walnut Street and Commonwealth Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

Attorneyforlicensee: Ernest I Blake, Jr., Esquire. Shaw, Pittman. Potts 8c Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

AVlCProject Director: John F. Stolz Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authorityof Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50424 and 5M25, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia Date ofamendment request:

November 7, 1988, December 1, 1988 and

~

May 19, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.3.6, "Accident Monitoring Instrumentation."

to make the action requirements for inoperable containment hydrogen concentration monitors consistent with the requirements of TS 3.6.4.1, "Hydrogen Monitors."

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The two TS which address containment hydrogen concentration monitors have different action requirements for the same monitors. TS 3.3.3.6, "Accident Monitoring Instrumentation," allows 7 days to restore an inoperable monitor to operable status before proceeding to a lower mode of operation. Iftwo rs are >operab)e, 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months are allowed to zestore at least one to operable status. TS 3.64.1, "Hydrogen Monitors." allows 30 days and 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months , respectively. The 30 day requirement is

,consistent with.Generic Letter 83-37 and is appropriate given the function performed by the hydrogen monitors.

The licensee is therefore proposing to revise TS 382.6 to refer to TS 3.68.1 for action requirements when a hydrogen monitor is inoperable.

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 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 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.

In regard to the proposed amendments, the licensee has determined the following:

1. The proposed change wi)Inot significantl increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The change affects only the time limitfor restortug an inoperable containment hydrogen concentration monitor to operable status. These monitors are provided for post-LOCA indication and recordtrg. They perform no control or trip functions and ere not needed for Immediate post-accident mitigative action. Hydrogen buildup following a LOCAis a slow process and alternate means of hydrogen monitoring are available.

Even in the total absence ofhydrogen monitoring, the hydrogen recombiners could sill be operated. The change will.therefore, have no significant negative effect on poet-accident hydrogen control and the consequences of a LOCAwou!d remain within previously analyzed limits.

2. The proposed change does noi create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident than any accident previously evaluated. The change involves no physical alteration of the plant. The change does not introduce any new equipment into the plant or require any existing equipment to operate in a different manner from which it wss designed to operate. The change, therefore, does not create a new failure mode, and a new or different kind of accident could not result.

3. The proposed change does not significantly reduce a margin of safety. The change does not affect safety limits or limitingsafety system settings. The proposed time limitfor restoring an inoperable hydrogen concentration monitor to operable status is consistent with NRC Generic Letter 83.37. The proposed time limit is appropriate given the nature of the monitored variable

~

Ij

Federal R

ster / VoL 54, No. 142 / Wednesday, J

26, 1989 / Notices and the availability ofalternate means of monitoring. The change wiLtherefore, have no significant efFect on the availability of pcNtwccident hydrogen control and margins ofsafety are not reduced.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's determination and concurs withits findhgL Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed change involves no significant hazards consIderation.

LocalPublic Document Room location: Burke County Public Library, 412 Fourth Street. Waynesboro, Georgia 30830.

Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. Arthur H.

Domby, nutman, Sanders, Lockerman and Ashmore, Candler Building, Suite 1400, 12l Peichtree Street, N.E, Atlanta, Georgia 30043.

NBCProject Director. David B.

Matthews Georgh Power CocnIiany, Oglethorpe Power Coriiorathn, Municipal Electric AuthorityofGeoqfh. Cityof Dalton, Georgh, Docket Nos, 6M'nd 5M25, Vogtle Electric Generating Phnt, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgh Dale ofamendment reciuest: May &

1989 Description ofamendment request:

These proposed amendments revise the values forTA(total allowance), Z (the statistical summation of errors assumed in the analys(s) and the Allowable Value associated with the low Pressurizer Pressure Safety Injection setpoint, in Technical SpeciTication Table @34.

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

In regard to the proposed amendment, the licensee has determined the following:

1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase tn the probability or cocisequeuces ofan accident previously evaluated because tbe trip setpoint is not chaiittecL and this change Is not a result of a plant modificstion or design change. The revtstous to TA, Z and tbe Allowable Value are consistent with the evaluated acddents The values being changed are used in the determination of whether or not instrument driftis sufficlent to cause the instrument to be declared inoperable. The revision to this Technical Specification provides consistency with the manner in which the increased uncertainty associated with the Veritrak instrument was resolved.

2. The proposed change does not create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because itdoes not result in a change In equipment and the trip seipoint remains the same.

3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the setpoht hss remained unchanged even though the safety analysis was evaluated by Westinghouse to account for additiceal uncertahty in the Veritrsk instrmneat temperature compensation.'ITiese evaluations show that the revised analysts limits would be bounded by the existing analysis. Tbe revision to TA. Z and Allowable Value are consistent with the safety analysis evaluation and willonly effect fafFect) the~tnt at which a determination of significant hstrument drift would result in the instrument being declared inoperable.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's determination and concurs with its findings.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed change involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Burke County Public Library, 412 Fourth Street. Waynesboro, Georgia 30830.

Attorneyforlicensee: Mr.ArthurH.

Domby. Troutman. Sanders. Lockerman and Ashmore, Candler Building, Suite 1400, 12y'Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30043.

NBCProject Director. David B.

Matthews Georgh Power Company, Oghthorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgh, Docket Nos. 50424 and SMR5, Yogtle Hectric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgh Date ofamendment request: May 19, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendments would revise the action statements ofTechnical SpeciTication (TS) 33.2, "Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation" and TS 3.'/.6, "Control Rooin Emergency Filtration Systems (CREFS)," concerning the control room emergency filtration system and its associated actuation instrumentation.

The change would add exceptions to TS 3.0.4, LimitingConditions For Operation and Surveillance Requirements'," to allow operational mode changes for those action statements ofTS 3.3.2 and 3 y'.6 which permit continued unit operation for an unlimited period oftime..

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

In regard to the proposed amendment, the licensee has determined the foliowin(p

1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofen accident previously evaluated. The change does not affect equipment involved in the initiation of previously evaluated accidents. The probability ofsuch accidents is therefore noi increased. The change concerns the Control Room Emergency FIItratton System (CREFS) and its associated actuation instrumentation, which function to mitigate the consequences of accidents. The change does not alter CREFS design or operation. The change revises the applicable action statements to permit mode changes Ifthe action statement atiows continued unit operation for an unlimited period oftime. The action statements were written such that continued operation for an unlimited time is not permitted unless the Technical Specification bases for the CREFS and its actuation instcumentation continue to be met. That is, the CREFS willensure that equipment qualification temperatures are not exceeded

'nd that the control room would remain habitable during and followingell credible accident conditions (including consideration of s stiigte Failuce) and the Instrumentation willensure a redundant and diverse means to initiate a Control Room Isolation in response to credible accidents in either unit (including consideration ofa single failure). The CREFS would therefore respond as previously analyzed ifa demand occurred while operating In one of the affected action statements. Operating mode changes within the bounds of the action statements would noi degrade the capability of the CREFS to mitigate an accident. hence. the consequences of previously analyzed accidents are not increased by the proposed change.

2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously'valuated.

TTie change does not introduce any new equlpcnent into the plant or require existing equipment to opeccite In a different manner from which It was designed to

Federal Rag

/ VoL 84, No. 148 / Wednesday, July 1888 / Nolloae

$1109 operate. Since a new fsiluremode is not introduced by the change, a new or different khd of accident could not result.

3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

The change does not affect safety limits or limitingsafety system settings. The Technical Specifications bases far the CREFS and its actuation instrumentation are maintained during operation tn the affected action statements. Operating mode changes within the amstraints of the action statements do not reduce the level ofprotection provided by the CREFS; therefore, margins ofsafety aze notreduced.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's determination and concurs with its finding.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed change involves no significant hazards consideration,

.LocalPublic Document Room locotiom Burke County PuMc Library, 412 Fourth Street, Waynesboro, Georgia 30830.

Attorneyforiicenseer Mr. Arthur H.

Domby, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman and Ashmore, Candler Building, Suite 1400, 127 Peachtree Street, N.F, Atlanta, Georgia 30043.

NRC Project Director. David B.

Matthews GuH States Utilities Company, Docket No. 5M58, River Bend Station, Unit 1 West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana Date ofamendment request: June 23, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The amendment would add ttvo additional Gould Type HE43 circuit breakers to Technical Specification (TS)

Table 3.8.4.1-1, "Primary Containment Penetration Conductor Overcurrent Protection Devices." For convenience and ALAI'onsiderations, it is desirable to provide 480 volt recepticles in the dryweH to power tools and other temporary equipment during future outages rather than run temporary power cables into the drywell. The design to provide power for the two receptacles requires the use of a containment electrical penetration.

These circuits must be added to TS Table 3.8.4.1-1 for primary containment conductor overcurrent protection devices utilizing Gould Type HE43 circuit breakers. The wiringwas implemented during the recent refueling outage; however, the licensee has stated that the circuits are deenergized and willcontinue to be verified as deenergized during Operational Conditions 1. 2, or 3 until the proposed change is approved. The new receptacles perform no safety-related function. and no safety-related systems.

other than the containment Penetzzztions, are effected by this modification.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinotiom The Commission has provided standards for detezmining whether a

'ignificant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). Aproposed amendment to an operating license for e facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation ofthe facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different ldnd ofaccidentfrom any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The licensee provided an analysis that addressed the above three standards in the amendment application.

1. No significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated results from the proposed change because:

The conduit, cable and equipment associated with this modification are being installed in accordance with all applicable seismic and electrical separation criteria. As such, adequate electrical protection In conformance with the Technical Specification Bases and USAR Secttun L3.1.1.4.3 is provided for ell containment penetrations used. Operation or failure of the equipment installed by this modification hss no impact on any safety. related system. Because. this proposed change does not result in any new plant operating modes and electrical penetration overcurrent protectfon Is provided as described in the USAR, this proposed change cannot increase the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

2 This proposed change wil!not create the possibility of s new or different kind of accident than any previously evaluated because:

A single failure of the equipmeiit installed by this modification would at worst cause s loss of power to motor control center (MCC) 1NHS-MCC2A. Loss of this nonsafety.related MCC is assumed by the USAR during design basis accident conditions and is therefore, as previously analyzed. No other new, credible failure modes can be identified. The drcuit protection design is identical to the ss-built configuration for receptacle zPOP-WR2A01 already listed on Technical Specification Table 3.8.4.1-1. Additionally. thfs proposed change does not introduce any new plant operating modes. Therefore, this proposed change cannot create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any previously evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not involve a sigziificant reduction in the margin of safety because:

Overcurrent protection Is provided such that no single failure willcause excessive current in the penetration conductors. This ensures that the overcunent protection Is in accordance with the RBS USAR.

Additionally,the chzziitprotection design is identical to the as-built configuration for receptacle 1POP-WR2A01 already listed on Technical Specification Table 3AL4.1-1. The new receptacles perform no safety-related function and no safety-zelated systems, other

, than the coatainmeat penetrsttons, are

~ affected by this modification.'urther the proposed change does not result in any new plant operating modes. Therefore, the proposed change does not result In any zeduction In the margin ofsafety.

Based on the above amsiderattons. the proposed change does not increase the'robability or the consequences of a previously evaluated accldenL does not create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated, and does not involve a reduction in the margin of safety. Therefore, GulfStates Utilities Company proposes that no slgaifleant hazards are involved.

'he staff has reviewed the licensee's no significent 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: Government Documents Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 Attorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq., Conner and Wetterhahn, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20008 NRC Project D/rector. Frederick J.

Hebdon Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and SM23, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California Dates ofamendment request: May 12.

1989 and July 3, 1989 (Reference LAR89-05).

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendments would revise the combined Technical Specifications (TS) for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Unit Nos. 1 and 2 to change the diesel generator (DG) allowed outage time (AOT) from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months to 7 days.

Prior to installation of the sixth DG, this change would apply only to the swing diesel generator (DG 1-3) for performance of preplanned preventive maintenance. After the sixth DG is installed and operational (scheduled for December 1991), the 74ay AOT would apply to all DGs. Specific TS changes would include (1) revising TS 3.8.1,1 and TS 4.8.1.1, and (2) revising the associated Bases accordingly.

This request was previously noticed in the Federal Register on May 31. 1989 at 54 FR 23319. This replaces the previous notice.

Siiio yedesel Regt/

VoL 94, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 1999 / Notices Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinatioru

. The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a no significat)t hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). Aproposed 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 kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

The licensee, in its submittal ofMay 12, 1989, evaluated the proposed changes against the significant hazards criteria of 10 CFR 5a92 and against the Commission guidance concerning application of this standards Based on the evaluation given below, the licensee has conc)uded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration. The licensee's evaluation is as follows:

a Does the change involve a signlficant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

The Diablo Canyon offsite and onsite power systems are highly reliable. The 230kV and 500kV systems have been demonstrated to provide reliable offsite power sources for both units. 11ie DCPP DG reliabilityhistory indicates that average reliabilityis higher than the requirements in Regulatory Guide 1.155, Statkin Blackout, and is higher than the industry average.

The risk and reliabflityevaluation determined that the probability of an accident previously evaluated does not significantly change by increasing the DG AOThem 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months to 7 days. The relative risk evaluation demonstrated that the relative risk remained low with an increased AOT from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months to 7 days because of the Improved maintenance possible with the 7-day AOT and the avoidance of multiple 72-hour AOTs.

Increasing the DG AOT does not involve physical alteration of any plant equipment and does not affect analysis assumptions regarding functioning ofrequired equipment designed to mitigate the consequences of accidents. Further, the severity ofpostulated accidents and resulting radiological eflluent releases willnot be affected by the increased AOT.

Therefore. the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident Priyviousiy evaluated.

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

Extending the DG AOT from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months to 7 days does not necessitate physical alteration of the plant or changes in parameters governing normal plant operation.

'%us, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any acckient previously evaluated forDiablo Canyon.

c. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

As discussed above, the risk and reliability evaluations determined that the change in core melt frequency for a 74ay AOT compared with a 77:hour AOTis insignificant.

Therefore, this change does riot result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC Staff has reviewed the proposed changes. inc)uding the additional restrictions proposed in the licensee'a letter ofJuly 3, 1989, and the licensee's no signiTicant hazards consideration determination and finds them acceptable. Therefore, the Staff proposes to determine that these changes do not involve a aignlficant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: California Polytechnic State University Library, Government Documents end Maps Department, San Luis Obispo, California 93407.

Attorneys forlicensee: Richard R.

Locke, Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120 and Bruce Norton. Esq.,

c/o Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.

NRCProject Director: George W.

Knighton Pennsylvania Power and Gght Company, Docket No. 50488 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 2 Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Date ofamendment request: June 9.

1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would change the Technial Specification 3.8.8.2 to reflect addition of two drywell cooling fans and to add circuit breakers in Table 3.8.4.1-1 of the Technical Specifications.

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

The staff has reviewed the licensee's request and concurs with the following basis and conclusion provided by the licensee In its June 9. 1989 submittal.

The proposed change does not:

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

FSAR Sections 9.4.5 and 8.2.S provide discussion regarding drywell cooling system and combustible gas control in contafnment respectively. Both Sections have been reviewed for impact.

'I%Is modification willimprove the capability of the Dryweli Atmosphere Recirculation and Cooling System. The safety. related function of the system, that is.

hydrogen mixing followingLOCA, is not changed except recttcuiation fane 2V416 AttB, instead of unit cooler fans 2V41S AS B, willprovide the air mixing in the CRD undervessel inca Fan motor horse power is reduced to 5/2.5 hp from the present 10/5 hp.

However. air flowcapability of fans 2V416 AIJtB is the same as that of fans in 2V415 AttB.This willprovide for same hydrogen mixhg capability.

(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. The change is h accordance with existing design criteria and willnot adversely affect the function ofany system. Electrical separation, seismic integrity and all other design criteria willbe met.

(3) Involve a reduction in the margin of safety. Technical Specification Bases discussed in Sections 3/4.6.1.7. "Dryweli Average AirTemperature'". 3/4.6.6. "Primary Containment Atmosphere Control", and 3/

4.8.4, "Electiicai Equipment Protective Devices": have been reviewed for impact.

This change willimprove the capability of the Drywefl Atmosphere Recirculation and Cooling System to maintain the drywell atmosphere average teniperature below the requirement ofTechnical Spectfiication Section 3/4.L1.7.

Based on the above considerations.

the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed changes involve no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room locotioru Osterhout Free Library.

Reference Department, 71 South Franklin Street. Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701 At torrieyforlicensee: Jay Si!berg.

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

Washington. DC 20037 NRC Project Director: Walter R.

Butler Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-388 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.

Unit 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Date ofamendment request: June 18.

1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed request involves changes to Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) Unit 2 Technical Specifications

Forbear I f VoL S4, No. 14Z / Wednesday, JtrJy ZG, 1989 f clothes 1n support ofCycle 4 operation%

Specifically, changes to the following areas ofTechnical Specifications are requested.

~ Index

~ Safely Limits (IL2.1)

~ Average Planer Linear Heat Generation Rale (3/42.1 and B3/42.1)

~ APRM Setpoinls (3/4.22 and B3/4.K2)

~ Minimum Critical Power Ratio (3/4M and B3/42 3)

~ Linear Heat GeMration Rate (3/42A)

~ Recirculation System (3/4.4.1 and B3/4.4.1)

~ Fuel Assemblies (5.3.1)

Basis forproposed no significant

/ azards cansideratian determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a

'ignificant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a faci)ityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation ofthe facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a sigzJficant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident. previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in ci margin of safety.

11ie staff has reviewed the licensee's request and concurs with the fo))owing basis and conclusion provided by the licensee in its June 16, 19Lq submittal.

The followingthree questions are addressed for each of the proposed Tcchnical Specification changes:

I. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

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

HI. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

~ Specification 3/4.2.1. Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate The changes to this speciification are editorial tn nature in that they reflect the removal of the remaining General Electric (GE) fuel from the SSES Unit 2 core.

I. No. The changes lo this specification and its associated figures are solely duc to the fact that no GE fuel willreside in the Unit 2 Cycle 4 (U2C4) core. Therefore. the spccificatiou is written to address the limits forANF 9XS fuel, the only fuel type in the U2C4 core. The deletion of the footnote referencing single loop operation (SLO) fs duc to the fact that the MAPLHGRlimits for ANF fuel do not change for SLO. None of these editorial changes have any impact oa safety analyses.

H. No. Sec I above.

HI. No. Sec I above.

~ Speciflcction 3/4.2.2, APRM Setpoints Sctpoints changes to thh apcciflcathn are editorial lnnature in that they rcflcct the removal of the remaining GE fuel fzmn the SSES Unit 2 core.

L No. The changes to this spccificafion are solely due to the fact that no.GE fuel wfll reside in the U2C4 coze. The definition of~

for GE fuel is therefore dc?ctcd. This editorial change has no impact on any safety anclysiL H. No. Scc I above.

IH.No. See I above.

~ Specification 3/42.3, Mnimum Critical Power Ratio The changes to this specification provide new operating limitMCPR curves based on cycle.s pecific transient analyses.

I. No. Limitingcore. wide transicrits wezc evaluated with ANFs CONTRANSA code and this output was utilized by the XCOBRA-T methodology (scc Sununary Report Reference 20) to determine delta CPRs. Both COTRANSA cnd XCOBRA-Thave been approved by the NRC in previous license amcndmcnts. AHcore-wide transients were analyzed determtnlstlcafiy (Lc, using bounding values as input parameters).

Two local events, Rod Withdrawal Error and Fuel Loading Error, were analyzed in accordance with the methods described In XN-NFL-19(A) Vol. 1.. This methodology has been approved by the NRC.

Based on the above, the methodology used to develop the new operating limitMCPRs for the Technical Spccifications does not involve a significsnt increase in the pzobabiHty or consequences ofen accident previously evaluated.

ILNo. The methodology dcscribcd can only be evaluated for its effect on the consequences of analyzed events; it cannot create new ones. Thc consequences of analyzed events were evaluated in I above.

Hl. No. As stated in I above. and in greater detail in the attached Reload Summary Report, the methodology used to evaluate core-wide and local transients is consistent with previous?y approved methods cnd meets cll pertinent rcguletory criteria for usc in this a pplication.

Based on the above, the usc of the methodology used to produce the U2C4 MCPR operating Hmlts wiflnot result in any decrease in any mcrgm of safety.,

~ Specification 3/4.2.4, Linear Heat Generation Rate Allproposed changes to this specification are editorial.

I. No. Thc proposed changes simply remove all references to GE fuel. This hss no hupact on safety since It is entirely administrative in nature.

H. No. Scc I above.

HI. No. Scc I above.

~ Specification 3/4 4m Recirculation System (Two Loop Operation)

The changes to this specification rcflect cycle specific stability analysis and the extrapolation of the limitpresented in figure 3.4.1.1.1-1, Thermal Power/Core Flow Limitations. to rated power conditions.

I. No. The 55 millionlbs/hr. optional limit proposed for deletion is an administrative change. Iiwas included as a quick reference for the operetor in order to assure be was within the Qow limitIn the figurc. The actual limitis provided by the flgurc, which rcinatus, but has been revised for Cycle 4 operation.

COTltANcore stabflity calculations pczformcd for U2C4 predict stable reactor opczation outside of the detect and suppress region of operation in SSES Unit 2. The detect and suppress region is conservatively dcfincd 4 by the area above and to the left ofthc 80%

Rod linc, thc 45% constant Qow Hnc. and the line connecting the 88% Power/45% Flow, 732'%ower/50% Flow points extrapolated to 100% Rated Core Thermal Power.

Operation below, to the right of, or on the boundary ofthis region is supported by COTRAN calculations which result in decay ratios of less than or equal to 0.75 as required by the NRC SER on COTRAN This region is slightly lazgcr than the region previously approved for SSES Unit 2. The results of this analysis are presented in Summary Report Reference 4. PPhL has also developed administrative controls to comply with NRC Bulletin 8847, Supplement 1..

In addition to the detect and suppress region dcfinition, PPIILhas performed stability testa in SSES Unit 2 during Initial startup of Cycles 2 and 3 to demonstrate stable reactor operation withANF9x9 fueL The teat results for U2C2... show very Iow decay ratios with a core containing 324 ANF Sx9 fuel assemblies.

Extrapolation of the Qgurc to rated conditions was conservatively implemented to ensure that decay ratio boundaries for the entire U2C4 operating region were provkicd.

Based on the above. operation within the limits specified by the proposed changes cnd PAL's administrative controls wiQ czourc that lhc probability and conscqucnccs of unstable operation willnot increase.

H. No. The methodology described above can only be evaluated for its effect on the conscqucnccs of unstcMc operation: itcannot create new events. The consequences were evaluated in I above.

HLNo. The methodology used to dctcrmtzie the regions of potcntiafiy unstable operation and stable operation is based on the guidance provided in the NRC SER for COTRAN. Also.

PALhas implemented edministratfvc controls to assure compliance with NRC Bulletin 8847. Supplement 1. This along with the tests and analyses describe in I above assures SSES Unit 2 compiles with General Design Witcria 12. Suppression ofReactor Power Osctllations. Thcrcforc. thc proposed change willnot result In any decrease in safety margin.

~ Specification 3/4.4.1. Recirculation System (Single Loop Operation)

I. No. laic original GE SLO analysis rcquircd the adjustment of APRM scram, APRM Rod block and Rod Block Monitor sctpoints in SLO'o bound changes in the assumed drive flow to core flowrelationship between two loop and single loop operation.

The GE analysis indicated that the two loop to single loop change is typically less than 7%

drive flowfor a given core flow. SSES-specific data taken by PALindicates that an 8.5% drive Qow change would bound differences between two loop and sizigfc loop operation. Therefore. Specificatiozis 3.4.1.1.2a.2.4 aud 8 incorporate sctpoint adjustments to account for this L5% change.

Spcciflcstion a.3 is revised to delete MAPLHGR as a "revised specification limiL"

S1112 Federal Register / Vol. 54,.No, 142 / Wednesday, July 26, 1889 / Notices This is an administrative change. LOCA analyses performed by ANF.... Indicated that the two loop MAPLHGRlimits are applicable to SLO forANFfuel. Tbe hnits for GE fuel are deleted since GE fuel is no longer ln the Unit 2 core.

Speci6catfon a8 is revised to delete the 1.37 Cyc)e 3 limitwhich was provided based on a PP&L decision to conservatively treat the Recircu)ation Pump Seizure Accident as an anticipated operational occurrence for which a delta CPR had to be determhed. For Cycle 4, PP&L has decided to treat the pump sehure event as an accident. consistent with the guidance ofthe Standard Review Plan.

Therefore. this change in approach will continue to ensure compliance with NRC guidance.

Changes to 3.4.1.1.2b and c, Actions c and e, Surveillance 4.4.1,1.2.2, and Figure 3.4.1.1.2-1 reGect the replacement ofthe Thermal Power Limitations figure for SLO with a reference to the two-loop f)gure. This is because the core stability analysis results have been determined to be applicable for both single and two loop operation.....

Based on the above, appropriate limits have been proposed to assure that operation under single loop conditions willnot result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

G. No. The revised APRM setpoints are based on actual data which renders them more restrictive. Application of the two loop MAPLHGRlimits, MCPR limits. and stability boundaries as specified for SLO is based on NRC approved methods. Neither these nor the supporting editorial changes can create the potential for a new event.

IG. No. As stated in G above. the new APRM setpoints are more restrictive and more accurate and therefore cannot result in a signif)cant reduction in safety margin. The other changes are based on analyses which ensure that no significant reduction in safety margin has occurred based on their inputs, applied conservatisms, and calculational methodologies as documented inthis proposal.

~ Specification 5.3.1 ~ Fuel Assemblies The proposed changes are editorial in nature in that they reflect the removal of the remaining GE fuel from the Unit 2 core.

L No. The changes to this specification are wholly editoriaL The reference to 82 rods

~

applied only to GE 8x8 fuel bundles, which willnot reside in the U2C4 core. References to the initial core loading are unnecessary and are proposed to be deleted. Based on their editorial nature, the proposed changes cannot involve a significant increase in the probabi)ity or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

G. No. See I above.

GI. No. See I above.

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 Ltbrary, Reference Department 71 south Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701 Allanreyfor'licerisea Jsy Si)berg, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20037 NRC Project Direclor. Walter R.

Butler Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Docket No, SMss Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit2, Luzeme County, Pennsylvania Dale ofamendment request: June 16, 1989 Descriplion ofamendment request:

The amendment request proposes to delete valves and a footnote from Table 3.6.3-1, "Primary Containment Isolation Valves", and a paragraph in Bases Section 3/4.8.2 related to the valves being deleted.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

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

The staff has reviewed the licensee's request and concurs with the following basis and conclusion provided by the licensee in its June 16, 1989 submittal.

I. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

As stated previously (See licensee's June 18, 1989 application}. a decision was made to cancel the RHR waterhammer backpressure control valve modiTication based upon reduced SRV leakage and improved suppression pool temperature measuring methods. The improvements noted reduce the frequency and duration of cycles that the RHR system operates in suppression pool cooling to within the design basis as stated in the FSAR. Therefore, the deletion of the proposed valves (HV-25129 A&B)from Table 3.8.3 1 does not affect the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Since the waterhammer modification is being cancelled. the deletion of the revised Section B 3/4.8.2 is an administrative change.

The moving of valves (Hv-zsrFot1 A&B) froin Section B (Manual isolation Valves) of Table 3.8.3-1 to Section C (Other Valves) does not impact the containment isolation function of these valves. Therefore this change is administrative in nature.

~be reinoval of the HV-251F011 A&Band

~ e <&Bvalves from TaMe 3.8.4,2.1 1 Is due to the fact that they are no longer motor operated and therefore are not required to have thermal overload protection.

G. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Since improvements have been made to the plant, and the RHR system operates within the design bases as stated in the FSAR. the deletion of the proposed valves does not create any new concerns. The removal of the revised Bases section and the rearrangement ofvalves on Table 3.8.3-1 are administrative changes and do not create new'concerns.

Since the power from valves HV-E11-2F011 A&Band HV-E11.2FO28 A&Bis removed and leakage requirements for containment integrity and isolation do not change. no new, concerns are created by this proposal.

IG.'Re proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Since the RHR system functions within the design basis, the overall safety margin is not reduced by not installing the proposed valves. The deletion of the Bases section and the revision to Table 3.8.3-1 are administrative changes and do not reduce the margin of safety. Since the containment isolation and integrity are assured to the same relevant criteria as discussed previously, the overall safety margin has not been reduced due to the proposed changes to Table 3.8.4<1-1.

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, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre.

Pennsylvania 18701 Attorneyforlicensee: Jay Silberg.

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

Washington, DC 20037

ÃRCProject Director. Wa)ter R.

Butler Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Docket No. SM88 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Dale ofamendment request: June 19, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment request consists of a one time waiver of the requirements ofTechnical Specification Section 4.0.2.b and would permit exceeding the 3.25 year combined interval for 3 consecutive surveillance intervals.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a

LP

~

,." facilityim&ves no tdgnificant hazards consideration ifoperation ofthe facIBty in accordance with the proposed amer tdment would not: (1 J Involve a significant increase in the probability 0 consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility ofa new or different kind ofaccident froin any accident Previously evalunte4 or (3 involve a significant reduction lnn maqpn ofsafety.

The sttdf has reviewed the hcensee's request and concurs with the following basis and conclusion provided by the licensee in its June 19, 1989 submittaL LThe proposed change does not Involve a signtflcant increase in the probabflity or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated.

The 3.25 surveillance interval extension criteria ofTechnical Spedflcation 4.02 wae not taken credit forin the evaluation ofthe probability or severity ef events analyzed bi the plant accident analysis (FSAR Chapter 18).

Additionally,the 18 month refuel Interval was originally chosen to correspond to expected operating cyde length such that these suiveitlances would be performed during the shutdown period (Reference Generic Letter 83-27). Since no tccimlcal basis is specified for the 18 month Interval other than conformance with expected operating cyde length, deleting the 3M requirements for Unit 218 month surveillances on a one time basis does not involve a significant decrease in the effectiveness of the monitoring provision.

Generic Letter 83-27 indicates that thts ls acceptabk to tbe Staff ".. ~ forplant~ic condiflons where adequate iustiflcatton Is given."

TL The proposed change does not create possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any acddent previously evaluated since tba refuel surveiflance Interval wiilstill be constrained by the maximum 1M interval extenaton criteria of Technical Speciflcation 4A).2.

Ill.The proposed change does not involve signiflcant reduction In a margin of safety.

Deletion on a one-time basis of the requirement for three consecutive surveillance intervals not exceeding X2S times the interval from the refueling interval for Unit 2 18 month survetilances willuot significantly effect equipment reliability.Ihe current criteria allows a 22Ji month intervaL By virtue ofTecbntcal Specification 4.0.2a, the staff bas aiieady accepted that a 2'onth Interval wiU provide a sufflcient level of protection.

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, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701 Attorneyforlicensee: Jay Silberg.

Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street?AV

" Washhtgton. DC20037 NRC Project Director. Walter R.

Sutler Permaylvarda Power and Vga

" Company, Docket No:60480 Susquehanna Steam Electric Shia, Unit? hazerraa County, Bennsyhrania Dale ofamendment request: June~

'1989 Descrr'ption ofamendnient requesL The amendment request proposes changes to Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) Unit1 Technical Spedftcations to conect errors in forMCPR values introduced aa a result of ihe licensee's analysis in support of Amendment No. 90, dated May 15, 1909 and to incorporate some editorial changes. The licensee states it determined an error hi ita htterpretatiott oflicensing analysis ofendwf-cycle reactor pump trip (EOC-RPTJ event and found that Figure 3,2.3-1 and 3~2 should reflect minimum MCPR value of 1.43 instead of1,42requested in its February 2, 1SN request for Technical Specification changes to support Unit1 Cycle 5 (U1C5) operation.

Basis forproposed no significant hazanfs consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 5ILM(c)J. Aproposed amendment to an operating license for 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 o consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2] create the possibility of a new or di8erent kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3 a

involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's request and concurs with the following basis and conclusion provided by the licensee in its June 22. 1989 submittaL L The proposed change does not involve a signiflcant increase In tbe probabtltty or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated.

As stated previously, the results provided In tbe analysis supporting UtCS are correct.

Therefore, the analytical methodology used to develop delta CPRs. which was previously approved by the NRC. Is not in questhn. The proposed change cocrects an enor in converting the analytical results to tbe MCPR operating Iimttcurve when ROC-RFI's Inoperable. Conectton of this enor results In a more restiictive limitat endMwyde this willnot result In an increase in the probability or consequences of an acddent previously evaluated.

The Increased appltcatfon ofFigure 3.23-1 from 40% to 30% totaI core Qow is tbe result ofe more accurata dethiteest ofthe $6E8 Unit1 two pump minbacaa speed opcratlee Itne. The change to Indude 30% total core How was performed to ensure an eperattstI limitwas provided which bounds the

redeflned Qne. This wiIlnot Increase the probability or consequences ofan acddeat previously evaluated.

Tbe changes to Spedfication 82K

{APLHCRJ,3'LHGRJ. and 34.~ (SLO) are ail edifortai changes which reflect tbe removal ofall GE fuel &om the SSES Unit1 core. Speciflcation 3%1 Is revtsed to remove an unnecessary reference to ANF fueL and to remove a cross-reference footnote to SM Bgures since this ltmtt wfllno longer change for SLO.

Spedflcatton 32.4 also deletes unnecessary references to ANFfuel. Finally, Spedflcation 381 %2 deletes the reference to MAPLHGIL because it no longer represents a revtsed speciflcation limit"during SLO. Allofthese

" changes are editorial In nature, and can therefore have no impact on any previous safety analysis.

ILCreate the possibility of a new or different hnd of accident from any acddeot previously evaluated.

As discussed in I above, the methodology used to develop the delta CPRs that form tbe basis for the MCPR Qgures is conect as approved by the NRC for U1C8. The correction proposed wfllensure proper limits based on the methodology, it cannot create a new event. The increased flowrange for Figure XL3-1 is the result of more accurate information as to the location of the two pmnp minimum speed IIne. Addition of Qds new lower limitensures proper restrlcflons forthis flowrange; itcannot create a new evenL The editorial changes, by natme, cannot create new events.

III.Involve a significant reduction In a

" margin of safety. Ibe two changes to the MCPR Qgures provide corrections based on more accurate hiformattoa. Tbe change to the MCPR curves with ROC-RPP Inoperable results In a more restrictive mtnimma hmIL The Increased Qow range In Ftgiue~1 results In a itmit that was prevta>>ly not piovided. The rest of the changes are editorial In nature. None of tbe above changes willresult In a stgntficant reductho in any margin of safety.

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

Local Public Document Room location: Osterhout Free Library.

Reference Department. 71 South Fkankbn Street, Willcea-Barre.

Pennsylvania 18701 Attorney forlicensee: Jay Sflberg, Esquire, Shaw, Piittma, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW Washington, DC 20037 NRC Project Director. Walter R.

Butler iedasal Rer I Vai M, No. 142 ( Wednesday, fal4 1RS j NeSxl

SXXi4 Federal ReglO / Vol. ss, No. tss / Wednesday, July Oases

/ Notices Pennsylvenh Power and Qght Company, Docket No. 60488 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit? Luzeme County, Pennsylvania Date ofamendment request: June 23, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The amendment request proposes changes to Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) Unit 2 Technical Specifications to incorporate the interim NRC requirements as outlined in Bu0etin 8M7, Supplement 1, "Power Oscillations in BoilingWater Reactors (BWRs)". The revisions willreplace the existing Technical Specifications requirements to detect and suppress power osciilations and to clarifyActions and Surveillance requirements.

Specifically, the licensee has proposed the followingchanges.

~ Specification 3.4.1.1.1: Rewrite the LCO statement to read as follows:

3A.1.1.1 Two reactor coolant system redrculation loops shafl be in operation with the reactor at a THERMALPOWER/core flowcondiUon outside ofRegions I and 0 of Figure 3.4.1.1.1.1, Add Footnote "+"to OPERATIONAL CONDITION2 in the APPLICABILITY.

Replace ACI1ONS L b, and c with the followingnew actions:

a. In OPERATIONALCONDITION1:

With:

a) No reactor coolant system recirculation loops in operaUon, or b) Region I of Figure 3.4.1,1.1-1 entered, or c) Region 0 ofFigure 3.4.1.1.1-1 entered and core thermal hydraulic instability occurring as evidenced by:

1) Two or more APRM readings oscfllating with at least one oscillating greater than or equal to 10% of RATEDTHERMALPOWER peak.to.peak. or

2) Two or more LPRM upscale alarms activating and deactivating with a 1 to 5 second period, or

3) Observation of a sustained LPRM oscillation of greater than 10w/cm'peak-to-peak with a 1 to 5 second period. or d) Region 0 of Figure 3.4.1.1.1-1 entered and less than 50% of the required LPRM upscale alarms OPERABLE immediately place the reactor mode switch in the shutdown position.

2. IfRegion 0 of Figure 3.4.1.1.1-1 is entered and greater than or equal to 50% of the required LPRM upscale alarms OPERABLE immediately exit the region by:

a) inserting a predetermined set of high worth control rods, or b) increasing core flow.

3. With less than 50% of the required LPRM upscale alarms OPERABLE followACTION a.1.d upon entry into Region 0 of Figure 3.4.1.1.1.1.

b. In OPERATIONALCONDITION 2 with no reactor coolant system redrculation loops in operation, return at least one reactor coolant system redrculaUon loop to operation. or be in HOT SHUTDOWN within the next 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months .

c. With any pump discharge valve not OPERABLE remove the assodated loop from operaUon, dose the valve and comply with the requireinents of SpecifIcation 3.4.1.14.

d. With any pump discharge bypass valve not OPERABLE dose the valve and verify dosed at least once per 31 days.

~

~ Footnote ~~':Delete.

~ Footnote "+":Add new Footnote to read as follows:

The LPRM upscale alarms are not required to be OPERABLE to meet this specUication in OPERATIONALCONDITION2.

~ Specification 4.4.1.1.1.2: Delete the requirement.

~ Specification 4A.1.1.1.3: Redesignate this SpedflcaUon as 4A.1.1.1.2.

~ Spedfication 4.4.1.1.1.4: Replace the exisUng requirement with the following:

4.4.1,1,1.3 Atleast S0% of the required LPRM upscale alarms shall be determined OPERABLE by performance of the following on each LPRM upscale alarm:

1) CHANNELFUNCTIONALTEST at least once per 92 days. and

2) CHANNELCALIBRATIONat least once per 184 days.

~ Figure 3.4.1.1.1-1: Replace with new figure entitled "Thermal Power Restrictions".'

Speciflcation 3.4.1.1.2: Revise the introductory part of the LCO statement to read as follows:

3.4.1.1.2 One reactor coolant recirculation loop shall be in operation with the pump speed (less than or equal to) 80% of the rated pump speed, and the reactor at a THIKMAL POWER/core flowcondition outside of Regions I and 0 of Figure 3.4.1.1.1-1. and...

Also, delete 3A.1.1.2 b and c. (Other changes to page 3/4 4-1c are provided for information only, they were previously provided in the referenced proposed amendment.)

Add Footnote "+"to OPERATIONAL CONDITION2 in the APPLICABILITY.

Delete AC11ONS a, c, and e and add the followingnew actions:

a. In OPERATIONALCONDITION1:

1. With:

a) No reactor coolant system recirculation loops in operaUon, or b) Region I of Figure 3A.1.1.1-1 entered. or c) Region 0 of Figure 3.4.1.1.1-1 entered and core thermal hydraulic instability occurring as evidenced by:

1) Two or more APRM readings oscillating with at least one oscillating greater than or equal to 10% ofRATED THERMALPOWER peak-to-peak. or

2) Two or more LPRM upscale alarms activating and deactivating with a 1 to 5 second period. or

3) ObservaUon of a sustained LPRM oscillation of greater than 10w/cm'eak-to-peak with a1 to 5 second period, or d) Region 0 ofFigure 3A.1.1.1-1 entered and less than 50% of the required LPRM upscale alarms OPERABLE immediately place the reactor mode switch in the shutdown position.

2. IfRegion 0 of Figure 3.4.1.1.1-1 is entered and greater than or equal to S0% of the required LPRM upscale alarms OPERABLE.

Immediately exit the region by:

a) inserting a predetermined set of high worth control rods, or b) increasing core flow by increasing the speed of the operating recirculation pump.

3. With less than 50% of the required LPRM upscale alarms OPERABLE, followACTION a.1.d upon entry into Region 0 ofFigure 3.4.1.1.1-1.

b. In OPERATIONALCONDITION2 with no reactor coolant system recirculation loops In operation, return at least one reactor coolant system recirculation loop to

'p'eration, or be in HOT SHUTDOWN within the next 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months .

e. With any pump discharge valve not OPERABLF remove the associated loop from operation, dose the valve and verify closed at least once per 31 days.

f. With any pump discharge bypass valve not OPERABLE, c!ose the valve and verify dosed at least once per 31 days.

Redesignate current ACllONb as c.

~ Specification 4A.1.1.2.2: Replace the existing requirement with the following:

4.4.1.122 At least 50% of the required

,LPRM upscale alarms shall be determined OPERABLE by performance of the following on each LPRM upscale alarm:

1) CHANNELFUNCTIONALTEST at least once per 92 days, and

2) CHANNELCALIBRATIONat least once per 184 days.

~ Specification 4.4.1.1.2.4: Delete and renumber accordingly.

~ Specification 4.4.1.1.2.8: Delete and renumber accordingly.

~ Footnote ""'":Delete.

~ Footnote "+'"iAdd new Footnote to read es follows:

The LPRM upscale alarms are not required to be OPERABLE to meet this specification in

OPERATIONALCONDITION2.

~ Figure 3.4.1.1.2.1: Delete.

~ Specification 3A.1Ab: Revise to read as follows:

When only one loop has been idle, unless the temperature differential between the reactor coolant within the idle and operating recirculation loops is less than or equal to 50'.

the operating loop flow rate Is less than or equal to 50% of rated loop flow and the reactor is operating at a THERMALPOWER/

core flowcondition below the 80% Rod Line shown in Figure 3.4.1.1.1-1.

The Index and Bases sections have been updated on the marked.up pages consistent with the above described changes.

Basis forproposed no si8nificant hazards consideration determination:

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

F4rdozal ter / VOL 5(4 No-142 / Wedx1esday, I 26, 1889 / Notices Siiil

'ew or different )dnd ofacddent from any accMent previotrs)y evaluated; xxr (3) involve a rrigniflcantredrrntlrmla a margin of safety.

The staffhas reviewed the)lcexrrree's request and concurs with the following basis and crmcltrsfon provided bythe licensee in its June 23,19M submittal.

The fofiowmg three questions are addressed below far each of the proposed Technical Spedfication changes:

I. Does the proposed change involve a significant Increase in the probabflity or consequences ofan acddent previously evaluate d2 H. Does the proposed change create the possibiHty ofa new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated2 HI. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety?

~SpecificaUon 3/4A.1.18, RedxculaUon Loops-Two Loop Operation This spedfication has been xevised to replace the existing stability controls on the xedrculaUon system with (at a minimum) those recommended in NRC Bulletin 8M/,

Supplement 1.

I. No. The changes to the LCO provide the appropriate limits to ensure that proper actions are taken ifSSES Unit 2 is operating in a region of the power/flow map where an instability is more likelyto occur. TTre boundaries of these regions are based upon NRC approved Hmits for ANFmethodology..

Action a Is deleted as an editorial change; its purpose as a cross reference is adequately covered by the Appficabilitysections for the two.loop and single-loop specifications.

New Action a.1 requires when opera Ung in Operational Condition 1 an immediate manual scram ifoperaUon in natural circulation occurs, ifRegion Iof the new Figure 'Thermal Power Restrictions" is entered. ifpower range monitoring instrumentation exhibits evidence of instability or ifRegion H of the Figure is entered and inadequate instability monitoring capability is available. These actions will ensure that the MCPR Safety Limitis not violated. so that an increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated willnot occur.

Action a.2 requires an immediate exit of Region H ifentered. This is consistent with the Bulletin. and does not require an immediate scram because no indicaUons of power oscillation have occurred. Action a.3 is provided simply to avoid entry into Specification 3.0.3 should new Surveillance 4.4.1.1.1.4 be failed. It is not appropriate for any more restrictive requirements to be applied to these alarms when the unit is'perating outside Regions I and H.

New Action b reflects the current requirements associated with natural circulation operation in Operational Condition 2 and clarifies that a redrculation loop may be attempted to be returned to service during the allowed outage time. This change is an administrative darification.

New AcUons c and d incorporate actions that previously appeared as SurveiHance Requirements. This transfer is proposed in order to avoid Invoking SpedflcaUon 3Al4 due to the lack ofa spedfic action ifthe pump discharge or bypass valves failed.

These "new" actions and the assodated deletion of Surveiflance Requirement 4A.1.1.1.1 axe enUreiy admlnistraUve in

~ture.

New Footnote "+"was added to daxify that the LPRMupscale alanna are not required to be operable in Operational Condition 2 since an Instabifityevent is not a concern at lowpower levels, ZxisUng Surveilhmce 4A84.1A is deleted since a baseline noise level willno longer be used to detect and suppress power osdflations. Theaew surveillance is provided to ensure operabflity ofthe newly required LPRM upscale ahums. and frequencies of testing were chosen based on NRC approved methods fordetermining surveillance internals for similar instrumentation (ref. GE NEDC 30851P-A).

Based on the above, none of the proposed changes involve a eigniflcant increase in the

~

probability or consequences of an acddent previously evaluated. The stability related changes are consistent with current NRC guidance and approved analyUcal methods where applicable, and the transferring of certain surveifiances to actions willpreclude unnecessary shutdowns due to Specification 3.0.3.

H. No. The proposed changes relaUng to stability use the current guidance contained in NRC BuHetin SHY/ Supplement 1, which willensure that a new or different kind of ~

event willnot occur. They accompfish this by requiring reactor scrams in unstable regions and additional instabifity detection capabflity.

The editorial changes shifting Surveiflance Requirements to Actions cannot create a new event.

HLNo. See Iabove. The stabifity changes are designed to protect the margin of safety to the MCPR Safety Limit.The editorial changes Improve safety margin by precluding unnecessary plant shutdowns.

~ Specification 3/4A.1.12, Recirculation Loops - Single Loop Operation This specification has been revised to replace the existing stability. controls on the recirculation system with (at a minimum) those recommended in NRC Bulletin 884/,

Supplement 1.

I. No. The changes to the LCO provide the appropriate Hmits to ensure that proper actions are taken ifSSES Unit 2 is operating in a region of the power/flow map where an instability is more likelyto occur. The boundaries of these regions are based upon NRC approved limits for ANFmethodology.

Action a is deleted as an editorial change:

its purpose as a cross reference is adequately covered by the new Actions a and b.

New Action a.l requires an immediate manual scram when operating in Operational Condition 1 ifoperation in natural circulation occurs, ifRegion I of the new Figure "Thermal Power Restrictions" is entere<L if power range monitoring instrumentation exhibits evidence of instabifity, or ifRegion H of the Figure is entered and inadequate instability monitoring capabiHty is available.

These actions willensure that the MCPR Safety LhniiIs xrot violated, so that an increase in the consequences ofan acddent previously evaluated willnot occur.

Actiona2 requires an immediate exit of Region Hifentered. This is consistent with

,.the BufieUn. and does not require an

.'nmediate scram simply because no indications ofpower osdflation have occunerL'Xhis action does not afiow the start'f a redrculation loop to exit Region IL Action a3 Is pnrvided simply to avoid entry into SpedflcaUon 3A)3 should new

.Surveillance 4A/Lt~be failed. Itis not appropriate forany more restrictive requirements to be appfied to these alanna when the unit is operating outside Regions I and H.

New Action b reflects the current requirements associated with natural circulation operation in Operational Condition 2.

'New AcUons e and fincorporate acUons that previously appeared as Surveillance Requirements. This transfer is proposed in order to avoid invoking SpecificaUon 3.L3 due to the lack of a specific action ifthe pump discharge or bypass valves failed.

These "new" actions and the associated deletion ofSurvefllance Requirements 4.4.1.1.2.6 and 4A.1.12.8 are entirely administrative in nature.

New Footnote "+"was added to darify that the LPRM upscale alarms are not required to be operable in Operational Condition 2 since an instability event is not a concern at low power levels.

The revision to existing Action b is purely editonal in nature.

Existing Actions c and e and Surveillance 4.4/Lt~ are deleted since a basefine noise level willno longer be used to detect and suppress power osdflations. The new actions and surveiflance are provided to ensure operability of the newly required LPRM upscale alarms, and frequencies of testing were chosen based on NRC approved methods for determining surveillance intervals for stmflar instrumentation (ref. GE NEDC 308S1P-A).

Based on the above, none of the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The stability related changes are consistent with current NRC guidance and approved analytical methods where appHcable. and the transferring of certain surveiflances to actions willpredude unnecessary shutdowns due to Specification 3.0.3.

H. No. The proposed changes relaUng to stability use the current guidance contained in NRC Bulletin 8847 Supplement 1 to ensure that an unanalyzed event willnot occur. They accomplish this by requiring reactor scrams in unstable regions, additional instability detection capability, and precluding a recirculation pump start during single loop operaUon in a potentiafiy unstable region of the power/flow map.

The editorial changes shifting Surveillance Requirements to Actions cannot create a new event.

HL No. See I above. The stability changes are designed to protect the margin ofsafety to MCPR Safety Limit.The editorial changes

81116 Federal Register / VoL 54, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 26, 1969 / Notices improve safety margin by precluding umieceaasiy plant ahutdowna.

~ Specification 3.4.1.4, Idle Redrculatioa Loop Startup Acdon a baa been revtaed to clarify the thermal power/core flowcoudiUon where an idle recircahiUou loop cau be started.

I. No.'Ihia requtremeut la conatatant with new AcUcxia2 of SpectficaUon 3.4.1.1L Single loop Operadau which wea reviewed above. Tbe requirement to preclude a recirculadou pump start iu a potendslly unstable region of tha power/flow map will ensure that a new or different kind ofevent willnot occur. and ia couaiateat with the gufdancein NRC Bu}ledn 8807 Supplement 1 ILNo. See I above.-

III.No. See I abova 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, 71 South i

Franklin Street, Wiikes-Bane, Pennsylvarda 18701 Attortieyforlicensee: Jay Silberg.

Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW Washington, DC 20037 NBCProject Director: Walter R.

Butler PhBadelphIa Electric Company, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company, and Atlantic City Electric Company, Docket No. 60477, Peach Bottom Atomk Power Statioa, Unit No. 2, York County, Pennsylvmia

.Date ofapplicatiati for amendment.

May 15, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The licensee requests that the Technical Specifications be modified to reflect the results ofmaterial analyses conducted

's part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary material surveiflance program pursuant to 10 CFR 50, Appendix G and Appendix H. The requested changes will alter the reactor vessel pressure-temperature operating limits.

Miscellaneous administrative changes are also propoaecL Basis forproposed na significant hazan& consideration determinatiotu The Commission has provided standards fordetermining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). Aproposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a signifiaint increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

. evatuated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety. The licensee has provided a discussion of the proposed changes as they relate to these standards; the discussion is presented below.

Standard 1 Ihe proposed revtaiona do not involve a significant increase tn the probability or couaequencea of an acct deut previously evakiated because the revised thermal and preaaurizatton limits prohibit condidona where britde fracture of reactor veaaeI material la possible. Consequent)y.

there willbe no hcreaae in the probability or consequences ofpreviouaiy evaluated accidents since the primary coolant pressure boundary Iiitegritywiflbe maintained as assumed tn the safety design analyses.

The RT~ used to evshate the new pressure/tnnperature limits for the beltline materia wsa based on the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, which ia the latest guidance on RT~ determinadons.

The revised pressure/temperature limits cuivea were conaervaUveiy generated in accordance with the fracture toughness requirements of 10 CFR N, Appendix G. as supplemented by Appendix G to Section IIIof the ASMEBoger and Pressure Vessel Code.

The proposed mhtmum allowable temperature at which head bolting studs may be under tension ia also in accordance with 10 CFR N, Appendix G, aa supplemented by Appendix G to Secdon IIIof the ASME Bolter and preaaure Vessel Code, Removal of Ptguie 3.8.4 ia of no safety significance because it wsa forinformation only and ia no longer uppropriate.

Standard 2: The proposed reviaiona do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident frotiiany accident previously evaluated because the revised thermal and preaaurizaUon limits do not create any new kind of operatbig mode or htzoduce any new potendal faflaie mode. Conditions where brittle fracture of priinary coolant pressure boundaiy msteriala is possible willbe avoided. The proposed changes reduce the conservative margin that waa incorporated into the development of the cunent limits.

The cunent limitshave been shown by review ofmaterial characteristics and by more recent and more accurate testa and analyaea to be overly restrictive.

Standard 3: The proposed revtaiona do not involve a aigniflcaut reducdou in a margin of aslety because the proposed preaaure/

temperature Itmita atQI provide aufficteut safety margin. The revised pressure/

temperature limits. although less restrictive than the cunent limits. were established in accordance with current regulations and tbe latest regalatory guidance on RT~

determinadona Thus, the proposed changea merely reduce overconservative limita to acceptable IhnttL Because operation willbe within these limtta, the reactor vessel materiala willbehave in a non-brittle manner, thus, preaaving the original safety design bases.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significantkazards consideration determination and agrees with the licenseeis analysis.

Accordingly, the Commission has proposed to determine that the above changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

The licensee also proposes certain administrative changes to the technical Specification pages involved with the changes discussed above. These administrative changes incIude rewording TS 38K.3 to more accurately describe the vessel materials and appertainances involved. revision of the "neutron fluxspecimen" terminology on TS 4.8.A.2 to "surveillance specimen",

revisions to TS page 144 to reflect removal of a surveillance capsule, deletion ofreferral to a figure that is proposed to be removed, addition of Figure 3AL5 to the list on TS page iv(a),

revision of the Bases and other changes of a formatting and typographical nature. The Commission has provided guidance for the application of the criteria for no significant hazards consideration determination by providing examples of amendments that are considered not likelyto involve significant hazards considerations (51 FR 7751). These examples include:

Example (i) "Apurely administrative change to technical specification: for example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the technical specifications. corrections of an error, or a change in nomenclature." These

~ proposed changes are examples of such administrative changes and since these proposed changes are encompassed by an example for which no significant hazard exists, the staff has made a proposed determination that it involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room Locatiatu Government Publications Section, State Library ofPennsylvania, Education Building. Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17128.

AttorneyforLicensee: Troy B. Conner, Jr. 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington. DC 20006.

NRC Pmj eat DirectonWalter R.

Butler Power Authorityof the State ofNew

'ork, Docket No. SM33, James A.

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego, New York Date ofamendment requestt May 31.

1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would modify the Low Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) System surveillance test requirements to reflect the Recirculation System'loop selection logic modification installed daring the Reload 1/Cycle 2 refueling outage. Other changes to

Federal Re@'

/ VoL se, No. 142 / Wednesday, Jtdy01989 / Notices 9

~

various surveillance test requirements throughout the Technical SpedGcations (TS) would, where appropriate, replace the tenn "demonstrate" with the term "verify"so that each term is used consistently according to stated guidelines. The effect would be to reduce the need forredundant and unnecessary tests when related equipment is made or found to be inoperable.

The proposed change to reflect the loop selection modification would affect Speciflcatlon 4$A.3 by replacing the LPCI test criteria which states that "three Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pumps shall deliver at least',100 gpm against a system head corresponding to a reactor vessel pressure of20 psig" with the criteria which states that "each RHR pump shall deliver at least 9,900 gpm against a system head corresponding to a reactor vessel to primary containment differential pressure ofgreater than or equeI to 20 psid." Other related changes would affect Specifications 3$.A.3, 4.5%,2, 4.5.A.3.a, 4.5.A.3.b, 3.5,A,3.b, 4,5.B.1 and 3.5.A Bases to reflect the change I'rom the "LPCI mode" concept to the division of the LPCI system into two subsystems which then incorporate actions which would be necessary ifone of these subsystems is made or found to be inoperable. Thus, the criteria is similar to the Core Spray System/Subsystem criteria, LimitingConditions for Operation. and Surveillance Test Requirements. No system changes are required.

The other proposed change, the appropriateness ofreplacing the word "demonstrate" with the word "verify,"

was evaluated throughout the TS.

Where a specification requires testing at a specific frequency or the intent is clearly to require performance of an actual test to determine component or system operability, no TS change was proposed and the word "demonstrate" is retained. However, ifthe TS criteria is such that operability could be determined by ensuring that the associated surveillance tests have been performed with satisfactory results within the specified time interval, the term "verify"is proposed. For example.

Specification 4.10.D.1.b requires a shutdown margin demonstration when two control rods are withdrawn from the reactor core for maintenance.

Since the intent of the requirement is to perform a test, no change was made (demonstration was retained). In contrast, ifa subsystem or component is inoperable. the proposed change would delete the requirement to actually perform a test ofredundant systems or equipment to prove operability Ifthe surveillance tests have been perfanned within the required test interval (verify is used). This change does not affect the existing normal surveillance testing requIrements, nor does it affect the testing performed when equipment is returned to service from an inoperabIe condition.

Other proposed changes would incorporate related modifications to various Bases sections where needed.

Also. Bases 4.5 would be modified to eliminate the discussion concerning required testing which is based on the degree ofoperability and nature ofthe reason for out ofservice equipment.

This would be replaced with:

"Consistent with the deIinltion of operable in Section 4,0.C, demonstrate means conduct a test to show; verify means that the assodated surveillance activities have been satisfactorily performed within the specified time interval."

Basis forproposed na significant hazards consideration detenninatiant 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 fora 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 accident previously evaluated: or (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any previously evaluated: or (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The licensee has evaluated the proposed amendment against the standards provided above and has made the followingdetermination:

A. LPCI Pump Flow Surveillance

'peration of the FitzPatrick Plant In accordance with the proposed Amendment would not involve a significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92 since it would not:

1. Involve a signtficant increase In the probability or consequences of an acddent previously evaluated because the technical specification changes are administrative in nature.

The new minimum allowable LPCI (RHR) pump flows are the same values used In the current licensing reload analyses. No accidents as analyzed in the FSAR (Final Safety Analysis Report) are adversely affected by these changes.

The LPCI modifications aesodated with these changes improved the overall reliability of the LPCI system. These changes update plant modifications that have already been reviewed and approved by the NRC In Operating Ucense Amendments 8, 14 and M.

2. Create the possimity of a new or zlliferentkind ofscddent from any ecddent previously evaluated because the changes are sdmhistrstive biuature. The minimum LPCI pump flows proposed fn this application are the same as used in recent licensing reload analyses. LPCFs ability to mitigate s loss of coolant accident has been improved thxough ths elimination ofthe most huiting equipment fsflure.

3. involve a signlflcant zeduction In margin ofsafety because the changes are adiutnistrative. Analyses reviewed and approved by the NRC dearly show that the associated lPCI loop-selectton-logic modification improve LPCI's abflity to perform Its Intended function snd therefore the margin ofsafety.

B. Demonstrate/Verify Terininology Operation ofthe Fitzpatrick Plant in accordance with the proposed Amendment would not involve a sitpuflcant hazards consideration as defined In 10 CFR M92 since itwould not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or conaequencee ofan ecddent previously evaluated. This change Is administrative h nature: it Iiuproves consititency within the Technical Speciflcstfons and with the NRC establitihed positions on equipment operability. No accidents as analyzed the FSAR are adversely affected by these changes since these changes do not involve a modificstion to the plant or Operating Procedures.

The effectiveness of surveillance testing has not been reduced by these changes. The actusl reduction in test frequency Is not sigiiiflcant. Verification is adequate to assure that the systeru Is capable ofperforming Its intended function. Lees frequent testa will reduce wear and tear on components and will reduce the probability ofinadvertently leaving the tested system misaltgned.

2. Create the possibflity of a new or different kind of accident from any acddent previously evaluated because the change Is administrative. No modtficattons to the structures, systems or components are associated with these changes. Minor changes to plant operating procedures may be required to reflect tbts definttton of opereble.

3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because no modtflcations to any plant structures, systems or components are assodated with these changes. Mnor changes to plant operating procedures may be required io reflect this definition of operab!e.

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

Fidaral R er / VoL 54, No, 142 / Vi/ednesday, J

6, 198Q / Notkea Attorneyforliaulee: Mr. Charles M.

Pre tt, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York 10019.

NRCProject Director: Robert A.

Capra Public Service Company Colorado, Docket No. 50-267>> Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station, Meld Country, Colorado Date ofamendment request: June 9, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

This amendment request addresses early shutdown ofFort St. Vrain. It prohibits the plant from being operated in the power mode after June 30, 1990.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The licensee has submitted a no significant hazards consideration analysis in accordance w(th the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 50.91 and S0.92. The licensee's analysis of significant hazards considerations follows:

This amendment request is prompted by NRC letter, Heitaer to Williams. dated 04/19/

89 (G49137). That letter advised PSC of the need for an smeadment to Facility Operating License No. DPRM; to wit: "The licensee is aot authorized to operate the reactor (sbove 5 percent of fullpower) for electric power production after June 30. 1990." PSC proposes a modificatio to the NRC's suggested amendment statement to reflect s more conservative 2% power restriction after shutdown.

The proposed change does aot involve a significant hazards coasMeraiioa becau>>N operation of FSV Ia accordance with this change would aot:

1. involve a significant increase ia the probability or consequences of an acddeat previously evaluated. The early shutdown of Fort St. Vrain willnot adversely affect any plant system design or function, nor willit adversely affect safety.

2. create the possibility of a new or different kind of acddent from any accident previously evaluated. The early shutdown of Fort Si. Vrain willnoi result in any new failure modes.

3. Involve a significant reduction In a margin of safety. 'Ice early shutdown of Fort St. Vrain willhave no adverse effects on any

>>nargin of safety. Inclusion of this amendment in ihe license is based on an NRC request.

Additionally. the restriction included ia this proposed change prohibiting operation above 2% of full power further avoids any significant hazards consideration. Although PSC does aoi Intend io take the reactor critical after final shutdown, aad unforeseen circumstances requiring criticalitywould be accommodated by the 2% power level restriction. Long term operation at 2% power or any other power level is noi being proposed. Remainiag below 2% avoids any significant heat being added to the core.

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

Local Public Document Room location: Greeley Public Library, City Complex Building. Greeley, Colorado Attorneyforlicensee: J.K Tarpey, Public Service Company Building, Room 900, 55015th Street, Denver, Colorado 80202 NRC Project Director. Frederick J.

Hebdon Public Service Electric tk Gas Company, Docket No. 5M54, Hope Creek Generathg Station, Salem County, New Jersey Date ofamendment request: June 6, 1989 Descript>>'on ofamendment request:

The proposed amen'dment would (A) increase the hydrostatic pressure from 1.0 P(a) to 1.10 P(a) for containment isolation valves provided with a water seal from the suppression pool, (B) clearly define as-left penetration leakage for these same valves, and (C) delete an incorrect cross-reference in Section 4.6.1.2.i.

Basis forproposed no signi%'cant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for deternilning whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated: (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated: or (3) involve a signiTicant reduction in a margin of safety. In accordance with 10 CFR S0.92 the licensee has reviewed the proposed changes and has concluded as follows that they do not involve a significant hazards consideration:

The proposed changes to the (Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) J Technloil SpeciTications:

1. Do not involve a sigalficaat increase ia the probability or coasequsacss ofan accideat previously evaluated.

A. The maximum calculated accident pressure for the drywell is identified in UFSAR Sectioa L2.1.L3.1 as 48.1 psig (P(a)).

This pressure is assumed to occur ia the event of a dssiga basis acddeat. a recirculation system line break. UFSAR Section 15.8.5.5.1.2.2 assumes that the radiological consequences associated with such an accident are in part limited by the integrity of the primary containment. Stace the subject valves form a part of the primary containment. it is necessary to periodically

~

test their leakage. The proposed change simply increases the hydrostatic test pressuze aad does not affect the 10 gpm TS leakage criteria nor alter the TS required actions ia the event that such a halt Is exceeded. Any leakage associated with the subject valves would stfllbe into a dosed system outside primery containment from which leakage is still processed sad filtered by the Ptltrstioa, Recirculatha. sad Veatflatka System (FRVS) ia the Reactor Bufldiag prior to discharge to the envtromnsat. Again this chaage does aot affect the function of the FRVS aor the leakage criteria from engineered safety features components outside the primary coatstam eat.

10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Paragraph IH.C.2 requires e hydrostatic test pressure of 110% of the maximum calculated accident pressure.

In the case ofHCGS, this requiiemeat translates into a test pressure of 52.9 psig.

However, the HCGS TS currently only spedfy. a teat pressure of 1A) P(a), 48.1 p>>>>ig; therefore, a TS change Is necessary to comply with Appendix J testing requirements.

Fram the discussion provided, PSEaG has concluded that the proposed change involves an additional limitation - namely that the subject valves mast be capable of withstanding a test pressure 10% greater than that currently required while still only permitted to leak Ia total, ao more than 10 gpm. Since the proposed change does aot affect this leakage criteria aor the actkxis required ia the event the criteria is not met.

PSE5 G has coaduded that the proposed change does aot involve a significant increase In the probability or consequences of an acddeat previously evaluated.

B. PSEaG has been aad wflicontinue to test sad measure the leakage associated with each coatahment peaetratloa ia order io assure that containment Integrity is matataiae>>L However, the wording ofTS 3.8.1.2.e could be misconstrued to require hydrostatic leakage from each ia.series containment isolation valve to be included in the total leakage criteria of 10 gpm. Such an interpietatioa ignores the fact that leakage associated with such a penetration is calculated using the valve with the highest leakage. Therefore, the proposed change would provide sufficient dariiy to correctly permit penetration leakage rates io be used ia the 10 gpm leakage criteria. Since this change does aot affect the physical condition assodated with peaetretioa leakage aor the criieria for total hydrostatic leakage, PSE&G has concluded that the proposed change does not involve a sigalficant hicreass Ia the probability or consequences ofan ecddent previously evaluated.

C. 'Ibe proposed change is administrative ia nature sad does aot affect the requirement to demonstrate operability of piuge supply and exhau>>>>t valves with resilient seals.

Therefore. PSE8 G has coacluded that the proposed change does aot involve a significant increase In the probability oi consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Do noi create the possibility of a new ur different kind of aoddeat from any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed changes do aot Iavolvc any plant modifications other than the increase ia

Fedazal Regi

/ Vol. 54, No, 142 / Wednesday, July 1M)9 / Notices the test pressure for the subject valves. In addition, the testing configuration is not:- -.

changing and the zesuits ofhydrostatic tests must still meet the 10 gpm leakage criteria stipulated m the TS. The requirements specwed In the associated TS Action Statemente should leakage exceed the acceptance criteria aze not affected by the proposed changes. As a result, PSEtt G has conc)uded that the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Bo not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

'Ibe proposed changes are necessary to: (a) comply with the requirements of 10 CPR 50, Appendix I, (b) clearly indicate the method of deteanining total hydrostatic leakage. and (c) correct administrative errors in the TS. As a result, the margin ofsafety is not compromised by the proposed changes. In the case of the increased test pressure, an additional margin of safety is provided since testing hydrostaticafiy sea! ed valves at a test pressure 10% greater than the maximum accident pressure provides greater assurance that the maximum leakage expected from the valve(s) willnot exceed conditions expected to occur during or followingan accident As a result. PSEttG has concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a stgnificant reduction in a margin of safety.

As discussed above. PSEaG has concluded that the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications do not involve a significant hazards consideration since the changes (i) do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. (ii)do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. and (iii)do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The staff reviewed the licensee's determination that the proposed license amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and agrees with the licensee's analysis. Accordingly, the staff proposes to determine that the proposed license amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Pennsville Public library, 190 S.

Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070 Attorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire, Conner and Wetterhahn, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW.,

Washington, DC 20008 NBCProject Director. Walter R.

Butler Public Service Electric tk Gas Company, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Generating Statioa, Unit Nos. 1 aad 2, Salem County, New Jersey Dote ofamendment request: June 8.

1989 Description ofamendment request:

The licensee has proposed to modify the Action Statement of the original request (dated September 12, 1988 and noticed on Febrtutzy 22, 1989, 54 FR 7845) to squire plant shutdown after 30 days with1,? or 3 vent paths moperable and to require plant shutdown after 72-houzs with4 vent paths inoperable.

Basis forpmposed ztosignificant hazards consi delation detezzniautiorL The original proposal would have allowed operation of the plant up to 30 days with4 vent paths inoperable. The new proposal changes the Action Statements to require plant shutdown

. after 72-hoars arith 4 vent paths inoperable. The addition ofthh Action Statement is more conservative and followsmore closely the guidance of Generic Letter 8347.

Inthe initialrequest the hcensee had detezznined that the proposed change did not constitute a significant hazards consideration. The staff reviewed the licensee's analysis and concurred with

'he licensee's determination that the proposed amendment did not involve a signiTicant hazards consideration. The staff had proposed to determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration [54 FR 7645 dated February 22, 1989J.

The licensee has reviewed the original Significant Hazards Consideration and determined.. ~

the original Significant Hazards Consideration remains valid and that the proposed changes do not constitute a Significant Hazards Consideration.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and concurs with the licensee's determination that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration and the original significant hazards consideration remains valid. Therefore, the staff proposes to determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Boom location: Salem Free Public library. 112 West Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079 Attorneyforlicensee: Mark J.

Wetterhahn. Esquire, Conner and Wetterhahn, Suite 1050. 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW.,

Washington, DC 20006 NBCProject Director. Walter R.

Butler Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Electzic Illuminating Company, Docket No, 50-346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio Dole ofamendment request: October 16, 1987 Description ofomendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TS's) relating to organization of facilitystaff.

. Specifically,1he proposed amendment

'would hnrolve Techztical Specification Sections ~b and 82.2c, 1kensed operator staEng, and Table L2-1. (Table 62-1 has been deleted per amendment No. 115). The amendment requested that the appropriate Technical Specifications be revised to zefiect existing operating procedures which zeqaire at Past one operator to be in the control panel area when fuel is in the reactor, at hast two licensed operators, one of which is a licensed senior operator. to be in the Control Room while the plant is in operational modes 1 thru 4, and at least two senior operators to be onsite while the plant is in modes 1 thru 4. This request is'n compliance with the NRC requirement addressed in 10 CFR Part 50.54, paragraphs (m) and (k) which address licensed operator staffing at nuclear power plants.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards considerotion determination:

The Commission has provided standards, 10 CFR 50.92, for determining whether a significant hazards

consideration exists. A proposed amendment to an operathg license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create'the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The licensee has provided the followinganalysis in support of a no significant hazards consideration determination:

The proposed changes would not (1) involve a'significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the addition of the proposed changes increases both the number and qualification requirements of control room operators necessary to satisfy the minimum shift crew requirements. These changes support the likelihood of detecting abnormal events early enough to mitigate potentially adverse conditions.

Also, the proposed changes would not (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because these changes which increase control room staffing requirements do not create the possibility of a aew or different kind of accident.

Finally. the proposed changes would not (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the proposed

yedeeel Re

/.VoL'94, No. 141 / Wednesday, July' 1999 / Notloee changes increase the control room staffing requirements and. therefore, will not reduce the margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed no significant hazards determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis.

Furthermore, the Commission has provided guidance concerning the application ofcriteria for determining whether a signfficant hazards consideration exists by providing certain examples of actions involving no significant hazards consideration (51 FR 7751). As stated in example (vii),"A change to conform a license to changes in the regulations, where the license change results in very minor changes to facilityoperations clearly in keeping with the regulations." The proposed changes associated with this amendment are within the scope of thfs example.

Accordingly, the staff proposes to determine that the proposed changes involve no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room locatioru University ofToledo Library, Documents Department, 2801 Bancroft Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 43808.

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

Washington, DC 20037.

NBCProject Director. John N. Hannon Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont Dote ofapplication foramendment:

February 2, 1989 Description ofAmendment request:

The proposed amendment deletes valves RHR-32, RHR-33 and Reactor Head Spray Check Valve 10-29 from Table 4.7,2.b of the Technical Specifications. This table pertains to primary containment isolation valves not subject to Type C leakage tests.

RHR-32 and 43 are in a line that is closed offby a blank flange, thus, no longer require surveillance testing.

Check Valve 10-29 is in a dfsconnected line that no longer serves any function.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination; The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards determination exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). Aproposed amendment to an operating license involves no sfgnificant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

The licensee has evaluated the proposed amendment against the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 and has determined the following:

The removal of the Reactor Vessel Head Spray Valves (IIHIt-32and RHR-33) from Table 4.7.2.b of the Technical SpecUicetfons willsimply remove the requirement to test the valves to ensure they willclose ifneeded to Isolate the primary containment. Since the valves are mahtafned closed end this amendment would remove the requirement to open the valves for these survefflances, further assurance Is provided that the valves willremain in their fsolated posftfon. The removal of the check valve (10-29) from the Table willensure continuity in the Technical SpeciTicatfons in recognizing that the Reactor Head Spray functfon has been df/iconnected, Thus, the proposed change does not fnvolve an fncrea JJe in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Operation of the RHR System is not reduced from existing requirements and fs stiffbounded by the assumptions used fn the safety analysis, thus the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any event previously evaluated. Elimination of subject survefllances wfilremove the ~qufrement to open the motor-operated valves, which wfil ensure that the integrity of this penetration is maintained at all times. Thus, the proposed change involves no decrease In any pIant margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis. Based on this review. the staff therefore determines that the proposed amendment does not involve a sfgniiicant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Boom locatiom Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main Street, Brattleboro, Vermont 05301.

AttorneyforLicense: John A. Ritsher, Ropes and Gray, 225 Franklin Street, Boston, Massachusetts

02110, NRCProject Director. Richard H.

Wessman Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Docket No. 50-271 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont Date ofopplicotion foramendment:

A'pril27, 1989 and June 23, 1989.

Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would extend the expiration date of the Operating License from December 11, 2007 to March 21. 2012.

Section 103.c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 authorizes the issuance of facilityoperating licenses for a period of up to 40 years. The current license term for the Vermont Yankee facility began with the date of issuance of the construction permit, December 11, 1987, and ends on December 11, 2007.

Accounting for the four years and three months required for plant construction, this represents an effective operating license term ofonly 35 years and 9 months.

Current NRC policy is to issue operating licenses for a 40-year period, commencing with the date of issuance of the operating license. For Vermont Yankee, this date was March 21, 1972.

Accordingly, it is proposed that the Vermont Yankee operating license be amended to change the expiration date to March 21, 2012 consistent with current NRC policy and the originally engineered design life of the plant.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards cotisideration determiaatiom The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c), A proposed amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The licensee's analyses contained in the April27, 1989 letter states the following:

The proposed amendment to the Vermont Yankee operating license does not involve any changes in the design or operatfon of the facility.but instead, only contemplates a

change to the expfretfon dste of the curreiit license. Tbfs extension is within the range permfssfble by the Commfsi/ion's regulations, spe'cificaliy 10 CPR. Section 50.51. In addition.

a fiiidfiigof no sfgiifficanthazards coiisfderatlon Is consistent with recent NRC actfons on applications of this type. The proposed extension wOI have no sfgnfficant impact on the safe operation of the plant or present an undue risk to the heeiih and safety of the public.

The proposed license amendment to permit the 40-year operating life does not conatftute a sfgaificant hazards consideration cs deif/led in 10 CFR, Section 50.92 for the followingreaeons:

a. The proposed amendment does not involve s significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

Age-related degradation was identified as the only mecfiaiifsm having potential impact on the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated. Changes in the population size and distribution were identified as the only parameter bavfng

I pederirI Regfster / VoL 54. No. 142 / Wednesday, july 26.

/ Notices poteaUsf fmpsct on pievtous coadusioas coaceaihg thi coasequeaces of an accident pieviousfy evaluated.

ConservaUsms have been iacmporated, in the design, construction, and operations of

. the Vermont Yankee facility.Furthermore, programs have been developed and implemented to: (1) evaluate aad maintain the servioe lifeofstructures. systems, sad components; (2) conduct technical analyses forverifying the adequacy ofstructiaes.

systems, aad components; and/or (3) allow surveillance, maintenance, aad inspection of

'the facility.Such programs assure that the Venaoat Yankee facilitywillbe operated as intended by its design aad the Technical SpecificaUone. That is, regardless of the age ofthe overall facility.these programs assure that the structures, systems, or components willbe refurbished sad/or repfaced to maintain component fuacUoaaf capability and the margins ofsafety required by the Technical SpedficaUone.

No changes to the above programs are necessary for assuring that during the proposed amendment term, Vermont Yankee continues to perform as intended by its desiga sad Technical Specifications.

Therefore, the proposed amendment will have ao slgnificaat impact on plant safety.

In 1988, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation conducted a study to update the population Ggures found ia the Environmental Report aad Final Safety Analysis Report aad to project popuhUons through the year 2012. As the report Indicates, the projected population ia the 50-mile area surrounding the Vermont Yankee facilityis expected to remain unchaage'd during the proposed amendment tenn. There are ao changes to the exclusion area boundaries, the increase ia population ia the Low PopufaUoa Zone ls projected as being negligible, aad the nearest populaUoa center is expected to remain more than 1-1/3 times the current five-mite Low Population Zone (LPZ) radius from the fadlity as required by 10 CFR 100.11(a)(3). Based on the results of this study. the oif.site exposures from releases due to postulated acddeats are expected to remain well within tho limits set forth in 10 CPS Part 100.

Because there wif]aot be significant changes in the population aad its distribution sunouadiag the plant, sad Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation willcontinue to operate the plant in accordance with its desiga sad Technical SpedficaUons. the potential radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated remain unchanged.

The proposed amendment willaot result in an increase in the probability or the consequences of an acddent previously evaluated in the FSAR because: (1] facility opersUons willbe continued In accordance with the fscUity's approved design aad Technical SpedficaUoas. aad (2) changes to the population and dtstribuUon surrounding Vermont Yankee are expected to be negligible sad willaot impact on the previously detenaiaed LPZ boundary.

b. The proposed amendment does aot create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any eccident previously evafueted.

CoaservsUsms have been iacorpoiated Ia the deeiga, caastrucUaa. aad operaUoas of Yeimoat Yankee. Purthumore, programs have been developed aad continue to be implemented to assure that the fadfityis operated as intended by design sad ia accordance with the Technical Specifications. InparUcaiar, the Ia-Seivfce Jns pectioa/Testing. Eaviroamental QuafificaUon. sad Maintenance Programs assuxe that fadfitystruchaea, systems, aad components willbe refurbished or replaced.

as appropriat. fhat is, regazdfees of the age ofthe faculty, these programs ensure that structures. systems aad components are refurbished sad/or replaced to maintain component functional capability and the margins ofsafety required by the Technical SpedficaUoas. No changes to these programs are necessary for assurin thet Vennoat Yankee willconUnue to perform ae designed and ia accordance with the Technical Specifications during an additional four years and three months of operaUoa. Therefore, there is ao possibility that a different type of accident is created.

c. The proposed amendment does not involve a sigaificaat reduction ia a margin of safety.

The margias of safety ideatified in the Technical SpedficaUons have been incorporated Into the facility's design, conatrucUon, and operations. With respect to operations, such margins are the basis for the facilityoperating aad eitieigeacy procedures, as well as the Veimoat Yankee Ia4ervice IaspecUoa/TesUag.

Ravtronmeatal QuafificaUoa, aad Maintenance Programs.

The fnspecUon, surveiQance. aad maintenance requirements of these programs assure that, regardless of the age of the overall facility,the fuacUoaaf capabiliUes of structures, systems. aad components willbe maiataiaed throughout the lifeof the facility though refurbhhment aad/or replacement, as appropriate, to meet the Technical SpecfficsUons. No changes to these programs are necessary to assure that during the addiUoaaf four years aad three months of operaUon. Vermont Yankee willcontinue to perform as intended by its design sad the Technical Specifications.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does not reduce the maigin of safety as defined ia the Technical SpedficaUoa beses.

Conclusion Based on the above conaidersUaas, we coatead that the exteaskia of Vermont Yaakee's operating hceaae ia accordance with the proposed ameadmeat willaot involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of acddeats pre~tously coastdered, nor create the possibility of a new or different kind of acddeat. and willaot involve a 8igaificiiat reduction in a safety margin. Therefore, we conclude that there is ao significant haxards considcraUoa associated with the proposed emeadmeat to the Vermont Yankee operating license.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and agrees with it. Therefore, we conclude that the amendment satisfies the three criteria listed in 10 CFR 5092. Based on that conclusion the staff proposes to make e ao sigmficant haxards consideratim determination.

LocalPvblic Document Boom

, location: Brooks Memorial Library, 224

'ain Street. Brattleboro. Vermont 0530L Attorneyforlicensee: K'K.Gad. III.

Esq., Ropes and Gray, 225 Franklin Street, Boston. Massachusetts 02110.'VRC Project Director. Richard K Wessman NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements ofthe AtomicEnergy Act of1954, 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 rides and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter L which are set forth in the license amendment.

Notice of Consideration ofIssuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with these actions was published fn the Federal Register as indicated. No request for a hearing or petition forleave to intervene was filed followingthis notice.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no enviromnental impact statement or enviromnental 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, itis so indicated.

For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendments, (2) the amendments, and (3) the Commission's related letters, Safety EvaluaUons and/or Environmental Assessmeats as indicated. Allof these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW Washington. DC and at the local public document rooms for the particular facilities involved. A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear

Fedesal Reg

/ Vol. 94, No. 142 / Wednesday, jtdyO 1989 / Notices Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Director, Division ofReactor Projects.

Carolina Power 82 Light Company, et al.,

Docket Nos. 50425 and 6M24, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina Date ofapplication for amendments:

June 22, 1988 Description ofamendments: The amendments delete the residual heat removal/service water dlscharge-differential pressure instrument (traasmitter and indicator) from the Technical Specifications for each unit.

Date ofissuonce. July 1S, 1989 Effective date; July 13, 1989 Amendment Nos, 135 and 165 Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR~. Amendments revise the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. May 31, 18N (54 FR 23308). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 13, 19N.

No sr'gnificant hazards consideration comments received: No.

LocolPublic Document Room locotiom University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wimam Madison Randall Library, 601 S. College Road, Wilaiington, North Carolina 28403-3297.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresdea Nuclear Power Station, Units No. 2 and S, Grundy County, Illinois Dale ofapplication far amendments:

February 22, 1889 Briefdescription ofomendments: The proposed amendments replace the existing license conditions on fire protection with the standard condition noted in Generic Letter M-10 and remove requirements for fire detection systems, fire suppression systems, fire barriers and fire brigade staffing requirements as per guidance contained in Generic Letters M.10 and 88-12.

Date ofissuance: June 30, 1989 Effective date: June 30, 1889 and to be implemented within 60 days Amendment Nos/F106 and101 Provisional Operating License Nos.

DPR-19 and DPR-25. The amendments revised the License and the Technical Specffications.

Date afinitialnatice in Federal Register. April5. 1989 (54 FR 13762). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments recei vedt No Local Public Document Room location: Morris Public Library, 604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois60450.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50473 and 50474, LaSalle County Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois Dote ofapplication foramendments:

October 7, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendments:

These amendments revise the LaSaile

'ounty Station, Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications by allowing operation of both units with suppression pool temperatures ofup to 105'. The current suppression pool temperature limit during normal operation is 100'.

Dare ofissuance: July 7, 1989 Effect/ve date: July 7, 1989 Amendment Nos67 and 49 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnolicein Federal Register December 30, 1988 (53 FR 53090) ~ The Commission's related evaluation ofthe amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 7, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments receivedt No Local Public Document Room location: Public Library ofillinoisValley Community College, Rural Route No.1.

Oglesby, Illinois 61348 Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Docket No. 50-213, Haddam Neck Plant, Middlesex County, Connecticut; Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al; Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3, New London County, Connecticut Date ofapplication foramendment:

March 13, 19N as supplemented April 28, 198S.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendments revise the Technical Specifications (TS) by removing Figure B.2-1, Offsite Organization. and description of the offsite and onsite organizations functional requirements in TS 6.2.1 and facilitystaff qualifications in 6.2.2. In addition, TS 6.2.1, willalso require that lines of authority, responsibility, and communication shall be defined. documented and updated for the onsite and offsite organizations in the Quality Assurance Topical Report.

Date ofIssuance: June 26, 1989 Effective date: June 26, 1S89 Amendment Nos./ 118, 33, 142 and 36 Facility Operating License ¹s. DPR-tt/1, DPR-21, DPRM ond NPF-49.

Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitiol notice in Federal Register. April19, 1989 (54 PR 15825), By letter dated April28, 1889 the licensee as discussed with the NRC staff, revised the Topical Report's organizational charts and provided a description of the Unit Superintendent's duties.

The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 19N.

¹ significant hazards consideration comments recei vedi No.

LocalPublic Document Room location: Russell Library, 123 Broad Street, Middletown, Connecticut 06457, and Waterford Public Library, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut 08385.

Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-S69 and SM70, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Date ofopplicalion foramendments:

November 3, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments modified the Technical Specifications by replacing Figure 3/4 7-1 "Nuclear Service Water System" with a more legible one and correcting a typographical error.

Date ofissuonce: July 10, 1989 Effective dote: July 10, 1989 Amendmenl Nos.: 99 and 81 Facility Operating License ¹s. NPF+

ond NPF-17r Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. January 11, 1989 (54 FR 1021),

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendmepts is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 10, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

LocalPublic Document Room locotiont Atkins Library, University of North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC Station), North Carolina 28223 Duquesne Light Company, Docket Nos.

50-334 and 6M', Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Shippingport, Pennsylvania Date ofapplicotion for omendmentst April21, 1889 Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments revise the Technical Specifications of both units to delete Table 4.5-5, "Reactor Vessel Material Irradiation Surveillance Schedule," and associated surveillance requirement 4,4,S.1.c. This table willbe included in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report of each unit. Meanwhile, there is no change in the reactor vessel material surveillance program, which will continue to be governed by 10 CFR 50, Appendix H.

Date ofissuance: July 12, 1989 Effeclive dale: July 12, 1989

Federal R Vol. 54, No, 142 / Wednesday, July 1989 / Notices Amendment Nos.r 142 for Unit 1: 18 for, Unit 2 Facility Operatirtg License Nos, DPR-66 and NPF-73. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. May 31, 1989 (54 FR23312],The Commission's related evaluation ofthe amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Jttly 12. 1989.

lVosignificrmthazards cansidemtian comments receivedr No, LocalPublic Document Room location: B. F. Jones Memorial Library,

'83 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001, GPU Nuclear Ctnporation, et al Docket No. 50-289, Three MileIsland Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania Date ofapplication foramendment:

April18, 1989, as supplemented on May 18, 1989 and June 19, 1989.

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment removes cycle-specific core parameters from the Technical Specifications, adds a reference to a Core Operating Limits Report which contains cycle-specific parameter limits that have been established by NRC-approved methodology, and adds an administrative requirements to submit a Core Operating Limits Reports to the NRC prior to each core reload.

Date ofissuance: July 6, 1989 Effective date: July 8, 1989 Amendment No.r 150 Facility Opemting License No. DPR-

66. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. May 17. 1989 (54 FR 21308). The May 18 and June 19, 1989 submittals were not noticed in the Federal Register because they provided clarifyin wording in the amendment language and did not change the scope and intent of the original submittal.

The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 8, 1989.

No significant hazards considemtion comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Government Publications Section. State Library of Pennsylvania, Walnut Street and Commonwealth Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1710S.

Gulf States Utilities Company, Docket No. 50458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana Date ofamendment request: August

29. 1986 as revised May 2, 1989 and supplemented May 2S, 1989.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment added Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Suppression, Pool Pumpback System (SPPS) to 'IS 3/

'.5.3.

Suppression Pool. The Bases were also modified to add the SPPS.

Dote ofissuance: July 10, 1989 Effective date: July 10, 1989 Amendment No 38 Facr'lr'ty Operatic License Na. 1VPF-

47. The amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. October 22 1986 (51'FR 37512) superseded May 31, 1989 (54 FR 23314).

The May 24, 1989 submittal provided additional clarifyinginformation and did not change the finding of the original notice or the scope ofthe amendment request.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 10, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Government Documents Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 Indiana Michigan Power Company, Dockets Nos. 6M15 and SM16, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units Nos. 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan Date ofapplication foramendments:

March 4, 1989.

Briefdescription ofamendments:

These amendments revise the TSs to reflect the installation of a new meteorological monitoring system and provide proper reference to meteorological tower locations and the locations of instrumentation used for determining temperature. wind speed.

and wind direction. The TS Bases are also revised to clarify the channel check requirements of the new meteorological monitoring system.

Date ofissuance: July 5, 1989 Effective date: July 5. 1989 Amendments Nos.: 127 and 113 Facility Opemting Licenses Nos.

DPR<8 and DPR-74. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. AprilS, 1989 (54 FR 13766). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

Joseph, Michigan 49085.

Maine Yankee Atonicpower Cotnpany, Docket No, SMQQ, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station, Lincoln County, Maine Date ofapplicatian foramendment:

,December.28,.1988 and as clarified by letter dated May 30,1989.

Briefdescrrptr'on ofamendment: This amendment modifies the Operating License and the Technical Specifications to reflect the operating limits for the Cycle 11 operation at,a power level of 2700 MWt.

Date ofissuance: July 10, 1989 Effective date: The day ofissuance.

Amendment No,'113 Facility Opemting License Na. DPR-

36. Amendment revised the Operating License and the Technical Specifications, Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. February 1, 1989 (54 FR 5165).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 10, 1989.

No significant hazards considemtion comments recei vedi No Local Public Document Room location: Wiscasset Public Library, High Street, Wiscasset, Maine 04578.

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

October 19, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendmenti Amendment revises Technical Specifications 3.2.6 and 4.2.6 and their Bases to bring them into conformance with the staff positions delineated in NRC Generic Letter 8841. "NRC Position on IGSCC in BWR Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping."

Date ofissuance: July 7, 1989 Effective date: July 7. 1989 Amendment No, 107 Facility Opemting License No. DPR-63: Amendment revises the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. May 31, 1989 (54 FR 23316). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 7. 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments recei ved: No Local Public Document Room locotioni Reference and Documents Department, Penfield Library. State University ofNew York, Oswego. New York 13126.

Pahaal leg

/ voi, 5L Na. 142 / wednesday, Jsl gas / N(Aces Niagara Melawk Peisee Carpus&a, Docket No.~ Hhe lCQe Pshaw Nudae/r Stellar, Uakt &s 1. Oswego County, New York Dare ofopplicatiaa far anwncfruent June 3, 1988, as amended by fetters dated September 28 and November 15, 1888.

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment deletes Figure LM "Management Organizational Chart,"

and Figure 6.2-2 "Nuclear Site Organization." in accorchnce with Generic Letter 8tHN, "Removal of Organization Charts From Technical Specffications." Administrative changes to Section 8.1, 62, L5, 64, and 6.7 are included and Specification L9 is being revised to make the Unit1 Specifications conshtent with10 CFR 50.4. By letter dated ¹vember 15. 1988, the licensee amended the amend'ment application to propose. additional adminfstrative changes to the Specifications. These changes reHect the creation ofthe position ofExecutive Vice President-Nuclear Operations. This title replaces all current references to Senior Vice President in the Specifications.

Dote ofissuar/ce: July 20 1880 Effective dale: July 10. 1989 Amendment No, 108 Facility Operatmg L/cense Na. NPF-63/ Amendment revises the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotice m Federal Register: May 17, 1989 (54 FR 21311). The Commission's related evaluation ofthe amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 20, 2989.

No Sign/'f/c/mt hazards cons/'derotior/

'omments received: No Local Public Document Boom location: Reference and Documents Department, Penfield Library, State University ofNew York, Oswego, New York 13126.

NBCProject Director. Robert A.

Capra Philadelphia Electric Company; Docket No. 50-352, Limerick Gene!sting Statioa, Unit 1, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Date ofapplication far ar/rendurenr.

November 4, 1988 as supplemented March 29, 1988 Briefdescripr/'on ofamendment: The Amendment revised the Technical Specifications to permit operation of the reactor with one of two reactor recirculation loops in service under certain specified conditions.

Dale ofissuance: June 30, 1989.

Effective date: Within 30 days ofdate of issuance.

Amendment No. 30 Jbedity erutisff/

L/cense¹ AFF 39.-T2us emerBsterrt revised the Technical Specification.

Date ofirutialnor/ce m Fodexal Reghter. h4arch lkfSS (54 PR 9%@The Commission's related evaluatiaa of the amendment is contained ina Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 18M.

No significant hazards consideratian comments received/ No Local Public Document Room location; Pottstown Public Library, 500 High Street, Pottstown, Pennsyfvanfa 19464.

Power Authority af the State ofNew York, Docket No SM33, james A.

FitzPatrfck Nuclear Power PIant, Oswego County, ¹w York Data ofappficatian faramendrr/ent.

August 1$, 1887 Briefdescription ofarnendmenr. The amendment extends the expiration date of the operatfng license from II/fay20.

2010 to October 17, 2014.

Date ofissuar/ce: July 10, 2889 Effective dote: July 10, 1889 Amendment ¹.i 133 Facility Operating License No, DPB-59/ Amendment revised the Tecfmfcal Specificatioa.

Date ofinitialnoticeiriFederal Register. November 22. 1987 (52 PR 44247) and a corrected notice issued December 28, 1987 (52 FR 48891). The Commission prepared a Environmental Assessment and Finding ofNo Signlficent impact whfch was puMshed in the Federal Reghter on May 4. 2989 (54 PR 19265). The Coaunfssfon's related evaluation of the amendment is contained ln e Safety Evaluation dated July M298L No agnificant hazanb coasid'eroded comments receirecf: No Local Public Document Roam/

'ocation Penfidd Library, State University College of Oswego, Osvrega, New York.

NBCProject Di/ector: Robert A.

Capra PubHc Service Electric 5 Gas Company, Docket No 50454, Hope Creek Generating Statfcur, Sakm County, New Jersey Date ofoppiicohon for oaieedniena

'April22, 2989 Briefdescri prior/ofamendment.

Revised Technical Specifications TaMe 4.112.22-1, Table Notation (dl. to refiect taking the tritium sample from the spent fuel pool area rather than from the ventilation exhaust.

Dote ofr'ssuance: July 10. 1988 Effective date: July 10, 1989 Amendment No. 28 FacilityOpera &gLiceese Na HPP

57. This amendment revised the Technical Speciffcatfons.

Dao ofmr'tialr/oeeerir Pedes Regf stem May 32. 2989 (54 PR 23322$ The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment h contained fn a Safety Evatuation dated tuiy20. 2989.

Nosignificant hazanh consideration comments received/ No LocalPublic Document Boom location/ PennsvQIa Public Library,190 S. Broadway, Pennsville. New Jersey 08070 System Energy Resources, Iucet aL, Docket Na 564i6, Grand GulfNudear Station, Unft1, Clrufiorne County, Misshsfp pi Date ofapplication for ancend'//uu/a Apn118, 1989 Bn'ef description ofamendmena The amendment changes the Tecfmical Specificatioas by increasing tbe suppression pool low water level trip setpoint and aDmvable value for actuation of tbe suppression pool makeup system.

Dtrre ofissuarice: July 3. 1969 Effec&e dare: July 3. 1989 Amer/d/ne//l No. 60 C

Foci7ity Operat/I/g License¹ PfPF-'9, This amendment revises the Technical Specifications Date ofmilialnoticein Federal Register. May 32, 2989 (54 FR 23325). The Commission's related evaluation af the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated tuIy 3, 2889.

No s/'gnificant hazards consrderot/an comment/ received: Na LocalPublic Dacumer/t Boom location: Hinds Junior CoHege.

McLendon Library, Raymand, Mississippi 39154 Tenaessee ValleyAuthority,Dechec No.

50-280, Browns Ferry Nuclear chef, Vnit 2,'Gemstone Coasty, AlobaIos Date ofapplication foramend/neat February 24. 1989 (TS 263)

Briefdescription ofaniendmer< The amendment changes calibration frequencies for instrument lines containing transmitters manufactured by Tobar, hic. to more conservative

~ intervals. It aho includes edmunstrative changes to instrument numbers. aud deletes instrument checks for four instrument channeb.

Dare ofissuance: July 7. 2989 Effective date/ July 7, 1989, and shaH be implemented withm 80 days Amendment No.r 187 Facility Operating Licensehb, DPR-52 Arsendment revised the Techrrical Specifications.

Fedend R es / vol. ss, No. 149 /. wednesday, /B, 1999 / Nodose Date.ofnntr'al notice inFederal,.

Facility OperatingLt'cetiseNo. NPF-7r Register. April19, 1989 (54 FR 15838).

" Amendment revised the Technical The Commission's related evaluation of Specincations.

the amendmentis contained in 8 Safety Date ofinitialnoliceinFederal Evaluation dated July 7, 1989 Itegf ster. November 30, 1988 (53 FR Nosigruficant hazards consideration 48339). The Commission'8 related comments recei ved: No

-evaluation of the amendment is LocalPublic Document Room contained in a Safety Evaluation dated locatiom Athens Public Library. South lune 30, 1989.

Street, Athens, Alabama 35811.

No significant hazards consideration Loco/Public Document Roam c ammentS iuoeiVed: Nn.

Virginia, Charlottesville, Vfrgfnfa22801.

Dale ofapplication foramendments:

April17, 1986 (TS 89-16)

VirginiaElectric and Power Company, et Briefdescription ofamendments: The

~md ents revue Section 6, Power Station, Unit No.1, Louisa Administrative Controls, of the County. Virginia Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Date ofapplication foramendment:

Technical Specifications (TS). The November 30, 1988, as supplemented changes, to Specifications 62.3.2 and June 19, 1989.

8~.4 for the Independent Safety Briefdescription ofamendment: This Engineering Group (ISEG), limitthe ainendment revises the heatup and group to five full-timeengineers and cooldown curves and associated low have thegroup report its temperature overpressurization recommendations to the Manager of setpoints to be valid for a period up to Nuclear Manager's Review Croup. The 10 effective fuffpower years, In ISEG is also renamed to Independent addition, the staff finds that the Safety Engineering (ISE).

submittals supporting your amendment Date ofissuance: July 5, 1889 request comply vtith Generic Letter 88-Effeclive dale: September 3, 1988 11 and the methods specified in Amendment Nos.: 119, 108 Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2.

Facility Operating Licenses Nos.

Date ofissuance: June 30, 1989 DPR-77 and DPR-79. Amendments Effective date: June 30, 1989 revised the Technical Specifications.

Amendment No.: 117 Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Facility Operating License No. NPF<r Register. May 17, 1989 (54 FR 21318). The Amendment revised the Technical Commission's related evaluation of the Specifications.

amendment is contained in a Safety Dote ofinitialnoticein Federal Evaluation dated July 5. 1989.

Register. December 30, 1988 (53 FR No significant hazards consideration 53104). The June 19, 1989 letter provided comments received: No supplemental information which did not Local Public Document Room change the staffs initialdetermination locotion: Chattanooga-Hamilton County that the proposed amendment did not Library, 1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, involve no ttignfficant hazards Tennessee 37402.

considerations.

The Commission's related evaluation VirginiaElectric and Power Mmpanys et

. of the amendment is contained in a aL, Docket Nos. 5~ and 5 39, No&

Safety Fvafuation dated June 30.1989.

Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, No significant hozards consideration commentsreceivedr No.

Date ofapplication for amendment:

Local Public Document Room June 17, 1987 location: The Alderman Library, Briefdescription ofamendment: This Manuscripts Department, University of amendment revises the NA-2 Technical Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.

Specifications (TS) in accordance with Methodofogy for a less restrictive negative moderator temperature County, Virginia coefficient.

Date ofapplication foromendment:

Also, the continued use of these TS at February 23, 1989 NA-1 for Cycle 8 and Cycle 9, etc., is Briefdescription ofomendment: This hereby approved.

amendment modifies TS Table 3.8-1 by Date ofissuance: June 30, 1989 deleting components from the table Effective date: June 30, 1989 which had previously been removed and Amendmenl No.: 100

'by correcting one typographical error.

Dote afissuance: July 7, 1989 Effective date: July 7, 1889 Amendment No.r 101 Facility Operating License No, NPF-7:

Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitialnoticein Federal

~ Register. May 3, 1989 (54 FR 18961). The Commission's related evaluation ofthe amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 7, 1989.

No significant hazards consi derrrtion comments recei vedi No.

Local Public Document Room location: The Alderman JJbrary, Manuscripts Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.

VirginiaElectric and Power Company, et al, Docket Nos. 5M38 and M-339, North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and No.

2, Louisa County. Virginia Date ofapplicotion for amendments:

July 20, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments clarify the NA-1&2TS 3.4.6.1 regarding reactor coolant system leakage detection systems and bring the TS into closer agreement with Regulatory Guide 1A5 and Revision 4 of the Westinghouse Standard TS.

Date ofissuance: July 7, 1989 Effective date: July 7, 1989 Amendment Nos.: 118 and 102

. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF<

and NPF-7. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. November 16, 1988 (53 FR 46160). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated, July 7. 1989.

No significont hazards consideration comments received: No.

Locol Public Document Room location: The Alderman Library, Manuscripts Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.

Dated at Rockvtlle, Maryland, this 19th day ofJuly, 1989.

For the Nuclear Retpifatory Commission Gus C. Lainss, ActingD/'rector, DivisionofReactor Projects-IillOff/'ae ofNuclear Reaatar Regulation (Doc. 89-17383 Filed 7-25-89; 8:45 am]

S/LUNG COOS 7$9041%

July 18, 1989 r'ISTRIBUTION

'OCtiET F I LE PD31 GRAY FILE

,JSTANG PSHUTTLEWORTH DOCKET NO(S). 50-31$ /316 SUBJECT; DC COOK The following documents concerning our review of the subject facility are transmitted for.your information; 4

DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT.

Notice of Receipt of Application lt 4

Draft/Final Environmental Statement Notice of Availabilityof Draft/Final Environmental Statement-Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No.

Environmental Assessment and Finding of No"Significant Impact Notice of Issuance of Environmental Assessment

.. Notice of. Consideration4of.issuance of Facility Operating License or Amendment to.,Facility Operating License Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses S

p

( )

Involvin No Si nif/cant Hazards Conditions See Page(s)

Exemption

" DATED.

89 Construction Permit No., CPPR-Facility Operating License No.

Order Monthly Operating Report for Annual/Semi-Annual Report:

,.Other

, Amendment No.

',Amendment No.:

transmitted by Letter transmitted by Letter Enclosuros:

As Stotod CC:

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation PROJECT DIRECTORATE III-1 DIVISION OF REACTOR PROJECTS - III, IV, gt SPGCIAL PROJECTS jv OFFICE>

SURNAME>

~ LA/8D&1'-D HUTTLEWOR 7//18(89 SP H

NBC FORM 31a (10/ao) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

II 5 ~

Mr. Milton Alexich Indiana Michigan Power Company Donald C.

Cook Nuclear Plant CC:

Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen El lyn, Illinois 60137 Attorney General Department of Attorney General 525 West Ottawa Street Lansing, Michigan 48913 Township Supervisor Lake Township Hall Post Office Box 818 Bridgeman, Michigan 49106 W.

G. Smith, Jr., Plant Manager Donal d C.

Cook Nuclear Plant Post Office Box 458 Bridgman, Michigan 49106 U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office 7700 Red Arrow Highway

.Stevensvil le, Michigan 49127 Gerald Charnoff, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20037 Mayor, City of Bridgeman Post Office Box 366 Bridgeman, Michigan 49106 Special Assistant to the Governor Room 1 " State Capitol Lansing, Michigan 48909 Nuclear Facilities and Environmental Monitoring Section Office Division of Radiological Health Department of Public Health 3500 N.

Logan Street Post Office Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr.

S.

Brewer American Electric Power Service Corporation 1 Riverside Plaza

Columbus, Ohio 43216

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 113 / Wednesday.

June 14, 1989 / Notices NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Biweekly Notice Applications and Ameridments to Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to Public Law (P.L)97-115.

the Nui:lear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is publishing this regular liiweekly notice. P.L 97<15 revised section 169 of the Atomic Energy Act of l934. us amended (the Act), to require thu Commission to publish notice of any iimrni!ments 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 ard make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued. or proposed to be issued from May 18. 1989 through June 2. 1989. The last biweekly notice was published on May 31. 1989 (54 FR 23306).

NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACILITYOPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATIONAND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazarils consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CfR 50.92. this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated: or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated: or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

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

Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulatory Publications Branch. Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services.

Office of Administration and Resources hlnnugement. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. DC 20555.

and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register iiutice. Writ!rncomments may also be delivered to Room P-216. Phillips Building. 70'0 Norfolk Avenue.

Brthesda

~ !vlaryland from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Copies of written comments receiveil may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room. the Gelman Building. 2120 L Street. NW..

~

25368 Federal Rater / Vo). 54, No. 113 / Wednest)ay, June 14, 1969 / Notices Washington. DC The filingof requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed belbw.

By july 14. 1989 the licensee may file a request for a l.earing with respect to issuanre of the amendment to the subject facility nperatinq license and

" any person whose interesi may be aifected by this proceed>ng and i~ho wishes t.o participa'.e as a psrty1n the proceeding must file a written pe!itiun for leave to intervene. Requests t'or a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's -Rules of Practice for Doniestic Licensing Proceedings-in 10 CFR Part 2.'lf a 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 ofhearing or an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714. a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth wi!h particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding. and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted

'ith particular reference to the following factors: (1) the nature of the peti!ioner's right under the Act to be inade a party to the proceeding: (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property. financial. or other interest in the proi:ceding: 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 proceedinit as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.

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

Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proreeding. a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention willnot be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding. subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. and have the opportunity tn partiripate fullyin the conduct of the hearing. including the opportunity to present evidence and cross. examine witnesses.

Ifa hearing is requested.

the Commission willmake a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination willserve to deride when the hearing is held.

Ifthe final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective.

notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the aiuendment.

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

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

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

A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must bc 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. NW., Washington. 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 promptly so inform the Commission by a tolf.free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 325 6000'(in hiissouri 1 ~(800) 342.6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to (prnject Director)i petitioner's name and, telephone number: date petition was mailed: plant name: and publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washingtnn, DC 20555, and to the attorney for the licensee.

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

For further details with respect to this artion. see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room. the Gelmun Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.

and at the local public document room for the particular facilityinvolved.

Carolina Power Ec Light Company, et al.,

Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50.324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Caro lllla Dote ofapplication foramendments:

April28. 1989.

Description ofamendment rertaestr The proposed amendments would delete the organization charts from Technical Specifications (TS). incorporate organizational changes to Section 6.0, Administrative Controls. and update TS Section 6.S.4.9 to reflect current 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 reporting requirements.

Basis forproposed no signtif)cant hazard aansideratian determinationr The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a no significant hazard consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR S0.92[c). A proposed amendment to an operating Bcense involves no signiiflicant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated: or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3)

I Federal Reg)ster / Vol. 54, No. 223 / Wednesday.

June 14, 2989 / Notices involve 6 significant rednclion in 6 margin of safety. The Carolina Power 5 Light Company (CP5L) has reviewed the proposed chargos to the Brunswick Steat.. Elr ~rtr Plant Technical Spec::icaticns and has deterrtnnd that the reques ed 3-~ndment does not ir rnlve a si n.',i:.:.": hazards cor.s duration f~r!ne foi)oiling reasons:

1. The pr..pr ~"d amendment 'dues rot involve a signai:cant mcresse in the probabibty or cnnseauences ol an accident previously evaiu~ted because deletion of the organizz:ivn eh~its. updating of mdividual titles. and reinold el of two Plant Nuclear Safety Comini:tee (PNSC) members from the Technical Spec:hcanons dces not affect plant operation. As in the past. the YRC will continue to be informed of organizational changes through other required controls. The Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10. Pert H).34)b)l6)II) ioquires that the organizational structure be included in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Chapter 13 of the FSAR provides a description of the organization and detailed organization charts. As required by 10CFR5071(e). the company svbinns annual updates to the FSAR. Appendix 8 io 10CFR50 and 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) govern changes to the organization described tn the Quality Assurance Program.

Svtne of these organizationa'I changes require prior NRC approval. Also. It is CPAL's practi'ce to inform the NRC of organizational changes affecting the nuclear famlities prior to implementanon. The coinpany intends to continue this practice ior future organizational changes.

2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident fmm any accident previously eva!ua'.ed because the proposed changes are ad~inistratlve in nature and involve no physical alterauons of plant configuration or changes to setpoint or operating parameters.

3. The proposed amendment does not mvolve a significant reduction in the margin of safety because CP&L through its Quality Assurance Prograins. its commitment to maintain only qualified personnel in positions of responsibility. and other required controls assure that safety functions.willbe performed at a bigh level of competence.

Therefore. removal of Ihe organization rharts from the Technical Specifications will not ai!ect the margin of safety.

Also. revising Secuon 6.0 to reflect current organizauon by revising individual titles.

removing two P!ant Nuclear Safety (Committee) IWSC) members. and adjusting Ihe quorum requirements willnot effect the function of Ihe organiza tion or PHSC. Tbe PiSC wi)Iconunue to review. overview.

evaluate. and maintain plant operauonal s ifcty; therefore. Ihe margin of safety wlHnot be eifected.

I.'pdating the Technical Specificatioos to r<<flee current 10 CFR $0,72 and 10 CFR 5023 reporting requirements which superseded the old reporting requirement ol 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months written not)fice lkxt willnot affect the margin of su fety. -.,

The licensee bas ctx1ctuded that the proposed amendinent meets the three standards in 10 CFR 5L92 and.

therefore, involves na significant hazards consideration.

The NRC staff has made a pre)lminary review of the licensee'6 no significant hazards consideralion determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis.

ln addition. the NRC staff has observed from the proposed amendment that twa members to be removed from the PNSC quorum are: Manager ofTechnical and Administrative Support and Assistant to Plant General Manager. These lwo positions had been dissolved due lo a recent reorganization; however. the technical expertise on the PYSC quorum remains the same as before and.

therefore. the effectiveness of the PNSC ta evaluate changes to the plant operetioita) safety issues willnol be affected. Accordingly. the Commission proposes to determine that the requested amendment does nol involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room locatiatu University of North Carolina at Wilminglon, WilllainMadison Randal)

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

At tarney forlicensee: R. E. Jones.

General Counsel. Carolina Power tk Light Coinpany. P. O. Box 1551. Raleigh.

North Carolina 27602 lv'RC Prafeet Director: Elinor G.

Adensam CaroHntt Power tk Ught Campany, el al Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Caro)ina Date ofapplication far amendments:

May 1. 1989.

Description ofamendment request:

The amendments would permit the licensee io use any Type A Containment

)ntegrated Leak Rate Test methodology permitted by Appendix J of 10 CFR Part

50. Curreritl. the licensee can only use the "Mass Paint" method, ln accordance with the Technical SpeciTications.

Appendix J permits the Total Time method. the Point-ta-Point method. or the Mass Point method.

22te modified technical speciTtcation would simply reference Appendix J.

Basis forproposed na sisnifiant hazard consideration determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether e na significant hazard consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(cJ. A proposed amendment la an operating license involves no signiTicani hazards conaideratiorLif operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1} involve a significant increase ia tbe probability or carrsequences of 6n accident previously eve)uated: or (2J create the pass)bi)ity of 6 new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated: or (3) invo)ve 6 significant reduction in a margin of safety. The Carolina Power tk Light Company (Cpt L) has reviewed the proposed changes to 'FS and has determined that the requested amendment does nol involve a significant hazards consideration for the fu))owing reasons:

1. The proposed amendment does not involve a signiiicant increase in Ihe probability of any accident previously evaluated. ANSI N4$.4-1972 specified data analysis methodologies )Total Time or Point.

to Point) ~ ANsllANs56.6.1987 specified Mass Point dale analysis inethodology. and BN.TOP-1, Revision 1. specified reduced duration criteria. using the Total Time data analysis method. Each of these is an NRC Staff endorsed methoriology for the calculation of primary containment integrated leakage rates during tests. These methods. or any ot!'.er calculational method used to determine containment leakage rate during testing, are not considered to be'an initiator ofany accident previously evaluated.

The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously evaluated. As stated in 10CFR50. Appendix ). the purpose of the required tests is to assure that "...leakage through the primary reactor containiaent and systems and components penetrating primary containment shall not exceed allowable leakage rate values..."10CFR50. Appendix J endorses the data analysis methodologies (Total Time and Point to Point) specified in ANSI N45.4-1972 ae well as the Mass Point method s pecifled in ANSllhNS 56.8-1987.

Thus. Ihe proposed change ateets the purpose of the rule and therefore. does not significantly increase the consequences ofa previously evaluated accident.

2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment only provides for the use ofNRC Staff endorsed and approved methodolog)es for the calculation of containment leakage rates during tests. No possibility ofa new or different kind of acddent is created since the technique used to calculate leak rates during tests. In Itself. it not considered to be atL Initiatorof an accident. transient. Incident. or event.

3. The proposed amendment does not involve a aigrtiGcant reduction in the margin of safety. The proposed amendment allows DSEP Io use either BN.TOP.1 ~ Revision 1.

which requires use of the Total Time method when performing reduced duration tests, or Ihe Mass Point method with a ininimum test duration ot 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months .

As stated in the NRC February 27. 1986 SEA. "The Mass Point method bas been recognized by the professional coramunity as superios to the two other methods. Point.to-Point aad TotaI Time, which are referenced in ANSl N45.4.1972 and endorsed by the current regulations." The preference is based on the fact that the Tote)Time methodis

2o370 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 1989 / Notices dependent on selection of the first point and it's (sic) relation to the remaining points.

while the Mess Point method places equal emphasis on each point. Therefore. with the Mass Point method. an error in the first point is not as critical. This means that the upper 95'h confidence interval of the leakage for the Total Time me!hod may be higher thun that of the Mass Point method. However. this does not decrease the margin of safety in that the acceptance criteria of an integrated leak rate test is based on leat atte at the upper 95%

confidence interval being less thun the acceptance criteria. Therefore. any data scatter in the Total Time method Is accounted for in the statistical analysis endmust be within set Iiintts for the test to pass. Such en error would typically yield test results which would pass using the Mass Point method, but would not pass using the Total Time method.

Thus. to 'successfully perform a reduced,

, duration BiV.TOP i, Revisions. test. the test data must be more consistent than what is requiied for successful performance of e Mass Point test. For this reuuson. CP&L hus concluded that the propsed amendment does not significantly decrease the margin of safety.

The licensee has concluded that the proposed amendmcnt 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 determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis.

Appendix J permits the use of any one of the three test methods. The TS change willreference Appendix J. Accordingly.

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

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

Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297.

Attorneyfor licensee: R. E. Jones.

General Counsel, Carolina Power &

Light Company, P. O. Box 1551. Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 NRC Project Director: Elinor G.

Adensam Carolina Power Ik Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No.?

Darlington County, South Carolina Da!e ofamendment request: April27.

1989 Description ofomendment requests The request proposes to amend the Technical Specifications (TS) to add surveillance requirements to Table 4.1.3 for the automatic bus transfers on the auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system valve V2-16A and service water (SW) system valve V6-16C. The proposed change would require a refueling interval test of the thermal and magnetic trip of elements of the molded case circuit breakers associated with valves V2-16A and V6-16C.

Basis forproposed na significont hazards cnnsideratian determinatian:

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 involves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment wc uld 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 khd of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Carolina Power tk Light Company has reviewed the proposed TS ch'ange request and determined that this change does not constitute a significant hazards consideration based upon the following:

l. Operation of the facility. in accordance with the proposed amendment, would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed because the test)ng proposed is performed while the reactor is In cold shutdown/refueling and the systems tested are not required to be operable. In addition. there is no accident previously analyzed that is Init)uted by the AFW or SW systems components involved. Also. since no accidents for which AFW provides a mitigation function occur while the reactor is in cold shutdown/refueling, no accident consequences can increase. The SW valve involved is redundant to other valves which Isolate cooling to the nonsafety-related secondary system plant auxiliaries following a station blackout coincident with a Safety

'Injection actuation to minimize the non-sufety loads on SW during that event. The testing to be performed is done at a time when accidents coincident with station blackout are not postulated. therefore. no accident consequences can be increased.

2. Operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated b'ecause no changes to existing equipment are Involved. and the breakers being tested and their associated valves will be verified operable prior to returning the plant to a condition requiring their operability. therefore, no failure mechanisms are introduced.

3. Operation of the facility. In accordance with the proposed amendment, would not Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety since the testing noted willnot alter any accident niitigeting function required, and assures the breakers willperform their intended function. The exist)ng margin of safety is preserved.

In addition, the proposed amendment is, similar to Example IIof amendments likelyto involve no significant hazards considerat tom

"(a) change that constitutes an additional...

control not presently included in the technical specifications," as published in the Federal Register on March 6,198S.

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 ro significant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis.

Accordingly. the Commission proposed to determine that the requested amendment rloes not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Hartsville Memorial Library, Home and Fifth Avenues, Hartsville.

'outh Carolina 29535.

Attorney/or licensee:

R E. Joi.es.

General Counsel, Carolina Power I)

Light Company, P. O. Box 155). Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 NRC Project Director: Elinor G.

Adensam Carol)tie Power h Light Company. et al.,

Docket No. 50400, Sbaaron Hams Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Count)es, North Carolina Date ofamendment request: April 11.

1989 Description ofomendment request:

The proposed Technical Specification changes willrevise the limitof maximum fuel enrichment. This amendment request deals only with handling and storage of the higher enriched fuel. Plant operation using the higher enriched fuel willbe demonstrated to be acceptable by a cycle specific reload safety evaluation performed prior to fuel loading.

Specifically. the proposed changes will bu aa follows: (1) change Technical Specification 5.3.1. which currently requires that reload fuel have a maximum enrichment of 4.20 weight percent U-235. to allow a maximum enrichment of 5.0 weight percent U-235; (2) add to Technical Specification 5.6.1.

concerning design requirements of the Spent Fuel Storage Racks. an additional requirement to require that a maximum core geometry infinitemultiplication factor for PWR fuel assemblies be less than or equal to 1.470 at 88'; and (3) revise the numbering sequence of Section 5.6.1. Criticality, to eliminate duplicate specjficatjon numbers, Basis forproposed no eignificont hazords consideration determination:

The Commission haa provided standards in 10 CPR 50.92(c) for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists. A

Fedecal Regbter / VoK S4, No. 113 I Wednesday, June 14, 1S89 / No(feei proposed amendment to an Operating Licensefor a faci)ity involves 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 of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previous)y 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 foHowing no significant hazards consideration determination:

1. The proposed changes relate oaly to Ihe consequences of an accident es they do noi in any way impact the manner in which any systems or components involved Ia the Iniliationof an accident function. To evaluete the impact on consequences.

three distinct areas are covered: 1) maintaining the fuel reck Kefftees than or equal to 0.95: 2) maximum heat load generated by the foe) in the fuel poobu and 3) impact on radIologicsl dose.

The proposed change specilies a new Technical Specificailoa requirement on the meximum reactivity an assembly may have at any time in iis life. Credit can be taken for burnable poison integral Io the fuel in determining sa assembly's reeciivtty.

This new requirement assures that Keff willremain behw 0.95 In the fuel racks:

therefore. the consequences of storage of higher enriched fuel remains unchanged.

An evaluation has been performed io determine the impact of higher enriched fuel on Ihe pool heat load enalysis presented Ia the FSAR.

An evaluation assuming batch average discharge exposures up Io 50000 MWD/MTU (lead rod exposures of 80.000MWD/MIIJ) has shown Ihsi the cuITeai heat loads assumed In the FSAR remain bounding.

Westinghouse has performed an eva)uailon Io determine the paieailal impact of higher enrichment (and burnup) on the radiological corsequeaces of Ihe accidents presented In the FSAR. They have concluded that the impact ot earichmenis up Io 5.0 w/o and Iced rod buraups up Io 60.000 MWD/hflVcan be bounded by assuming a 4 percent Increase in radiological dose. The potential Increase In consequences Is aat significant based on the large margins lo the 10CFR100 limits present in Ihe existing analyses. Furthermore. It ls coacIuded that ifone takes Into consideration that the current FSAR analyses are based on a power level of 2900 MWT(for determining fission product inventory in Ihe gap) Instead of 2775 MWT, the current FSAR radiological dose consequences are bounding.

The changes Io the numbering sequence of Section 5.5.1 are administrative in nature ead.

Iheretore, cannot Involve en Increase Ia the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaloeted.

2. The proposed smendmeat does not creole any aew sceneries for system or equipment melfunclions. The changes are Integral Io the fueI and do noi create any new or special )anidHag. starage. or aperatfag concerns.

The changes to the numbering sequence cif Section 5.L1 are administrative in nature aad.

therefore. caaaot create the passibility ofa new or different kind of sccideai.

3. The proposed changes do aot result In e significant reduction in the margtn ofsafety.

Evaluations have been performed that show the Keffin the racks can be maintained less than 086. that Ihe change willaot resull In any spent fwlpool heat toads greater than those previously analyzed aad that radiological dose consequences remain well within the 10CFR100 guidelines. and are aoi significantly diIIereat than those currently re por!ed.

The licensee has concluded that the proposed amendment meets the three standards in 10 CPR 50.92 and.

therefore. involves no signifiicant hazards consideration.

The NRC staff has made a pre)iminary review of the licensee's no significant hazen)s 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.

Loca/Public Document Room location: Cameron Village Regional Library. 2930 Clark Avenue. Raleigh.

North Carolina 27805.

Attorney forlicensee: R. E. )ones.

General Counsel, Carolina Power tk Light Company, P. O. Box 1551, Ra)eigh.

North Carolina 21602 NRCProject Director. Elinor G.

Adensam Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50454 and 5M55, Byron Station, Vn)t Nos.1 and Z,Ogle County.

Ill)no)s Date ofappDcation for amendments'prO 7, 1$$

Description afameadmants rrtrluest:

These amendmenta woa)d remove two motor operated valves from Technical SpeciBcatlon Tab)es 3.8-2a and 3S-2b Basis forprapased na significant hazards consideration detenninatianr The staff has evaluated this proposed amendinent and determhed that it involves no significant hazards consideration. According to 10 CFR 5L92(c), a proposed amendment to an operating license involves no significant safety hazards considerations if operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probabi)ity or consequence of an accident previously evaluated: or

2. Create the poesibi)ity of a nevr or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated: or

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

The proposed amendm'ent removes motor-related valves OSX083A and OSX083B from Technical Specification Tables 38.2a and 3.8-2b. A modification was performed which converted the valves from motorwperated valves to manual valves by removing the electrical connections. The valves are maintained )ocked open and no longer require thermal overload protection devices and. therefore, do not meet the criteria for inclusion in Specification 3.8.4.2.

The basis for operability of the thermal overload protective devices on

'otorwperated valves is to ensure that these devices willnot prevent safety related valves from performing their functian. These valves are the essential service water inlet valves to the control room chillers, 'Ipse valves were originally designed to isolate essential service water from the chillers ifthe essential service water temperature was near freezing'. Ithas been determined that this function was not necessary because essential service water temperatures during winter conditions do not decrease to a point requiring chiller isolation. The modification converted the motor-operated valves to manual locked open valves, thereby.

ensuring an essential service water supply to the control room chillers and minimizing the potential of an electrical or mechanical failure interrupting the water supply. Since the valves perform their required function and no longer have thermal overload protective devices, the proposed amendment does not invohre a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previous)y evaluated.

The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed. The proposed amendment is essentia)ly administrative in nature. removing valves from a Technical Specification table that no longer applies. This amendment does not affect the valves'unctianal ability to provide essential service water to the control room chillers.

The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The change to the Technical Specifications ls administrative and does not affect a

.margin of safety. Converting the valves from motor-operated to manual locked open enhances their re))ability to provide essential service water to the control r'oom chillers. since the service water supply path is less susceptible to electrical or mechanical fail'ures.

28372 Federal Register / Vol. $4. No. 113 / Wednesday.

June

14. 1989 / Notices Therefore, based upon the above analy'sis. the staff concludes that the p.oposed amendment to the Technical Specification does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room Iteration: The Rockford Public Library, 215 N. Wyman Street. Rockford. Illinois 61101.

Attorney to licensee: Michael Miller, Esquire: Sidley and Austin. One First National Plaza. Chicago. Illinois 60603.

O'RC Project Director: Daniel R.

hiuller Commonwealth Edison Company.

Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and

3. Grundy County. Illinois Date of opplicotian for omendment request: December 21 ~ 1988 as supplemented May 4. 1989.

Description ofamendment request:

The December 21. 1988 application was previously noticed in the Federal Register on May 17. 1989 (54 FR 21300).

As orginally submitted, the proposed amendment would remove excessive testing requirements for other systems or subsystems of the Emergency Core Cooling Systems or Standby Cas Treatment Systems when one system or subsystem is inoperable. The rurrent supplement to the original submittal provides clarification to the wording of the footnote in proposed Table 4.5.1 concerning High Pressure Con)ant Injection (HPCI) surveillance requirements and clarification of how tlie proposed amendment meets the intent of Standardized Technical Specification Section 4.5.1 provisions

'related to the Emergency Core Cooling System line "keep fill"requirements and valve position verifications. In addition.

the following two changes were requested in this submittal to be added to the proposed amendment. One change proposes that a surveillance requirement (SR) be added to the Containment Cooiing Service Water System (CCSW). to assure system readiness that is similar to the Standard Technic ii Specification for the Residual Heat Removal Service Water System (STS SR 4.5.1.a.3). The second change which is purely administrative inserts the words "not used" under Section 3/

4.5.C to indicate that it was deleted by a previous amendment.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards cansiderotian deterniinuti ant The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a 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 considerations ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated: (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated: or (3) involve a signiiicant reduction in a margin of safety.

The licensee addressed the above three standards in the amendment application as follows:

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

'he additional I.CO action statement for the HPCI system snd proposed SR for the CCSW system sid in the early detection of potential inoperability of essential systems.

These additions snd the Technical Specification Section 3/4.5.G administrative change willnot affect the probability of any accidetit previously evaluated.

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

No new modes of operation willbe created by these changes nor willthe plant be allowed to operate beyond prescribed limits.

These supplemental changes to the previously proposed amendment are all enhancements or administrative In nature.

Therefore. the probability of new or di(ferent arcidents has not been created.

(3)lnvulve e significant reduction in the margin of safety because: Implementing the proposed supplemental changes willnot create any challenge to the existing safety analyses. The addition of valve position verifications can only aid in the early detection of inoperability of the CCSW system. The proposed HPCI system LCO action statement willnot allow reactor startup to continue until HPCI operability is assured. The Technical Specification Section 3/4.5.G change is purely administrative.

Therefore. the margin of safety is maintained.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no signiTicant hazards analyses given above. Based on this review. the staff proposes to determine that the proposed amendments meet the three 10 CFR 50.92(c) standards and do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Morris Public Library. 604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois60450.

Attorneyforlicensee: Michael L Miller.Esquire; Sidley and Austin. One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60603.

ltlRC Praj eat Directat". Daniel R.

Muller Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point Nuclear Generathg Unit No. 2, Westchester County, New York Date ofamendment request:

December 28. 1988, as c)arified May 10, 1089 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification 4.16 to add a new surveillance test for the Safety Injection System low head injection line check valves 897A-D and Residual Heat Removal check valves 838A-D. The proposed amendment would also make certain editorial changes (e.g., delete underlines, add commas, move text to another page, etc.) which are administrative in nature.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards aonsideratian determinotian:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a 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 considerations ifoperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a signiTicant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated: or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The licensee provided the following analysis of the proposed changes:

In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR $ 50.92, the proposed Technical Speciiication changes are deemed to involve

-no signiiicant hazards considerations."

1. Operation of Indian Point Unit 2 in accordance with these changes would not involve a signiTicant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The proposed Technical Specification test requirement is currently required by the February 11, 1980 Confirmatory Order Item

. A3. This proposed amendment merely transfers the test requirement from the Coniinnato~ Order to the Indian Point Unit 2 Technical Speciiications. Moreover. the consequences of doing or not doing this testing have been previously reviewed by NRC in various submit tais: namely our March 14, 1980 response to NRC's February 25. 19SO Generic Letter "LWRPrimary Coolant System Pressure Isolation Valves, and NRC's Coniirmatory Order dated February 11, 1950 and subsequent Commission rescission of that Order dated July 5, 1985. By committing to test the SIS Iow head Injection line check valves 897A.D and the RHR check valves 838A.D whenever RCS pressure has decreased to within 100 psig of the RHR system design pressure, the probability of coincident disc rupture of the two series check valves, as analyzed In ihe Indian Point Probabilistic Safety Study (IPPSS), is reduced

.to approximately 29 x 10'/reactor year from 4.4 x 10'~/reactor year. The latter value is based on IPPSS methodology using five year average failure rates to represent the "no testing" case. which is consistent with WASH-1400. Since Indtsn Point Unit 2 hss a normally closed motor-operated valve in the

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 113 / Wednesday.

June 14, 1989 / Notices 253/3 lnrrrtion (low path In addition io the two series check valves. the prxibability of an rnrursysrem loss. of.coolant accident (Event v) viu rhis path. as unaiysed in ihe ippSS. Is further reduced tc approximately 2,6 x 10 'l rvauior year. AR failure rates quoicd ut>nve

<<cc rile<<A valves.

2. Operation of indian Point Unit 2 in

<<ccordunce with these changes svou)d not c.cute the possibility of a r.ew or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed Technical Specification test rr q r::i'ment is currently required by 4RC's Fi bruury 11. 1980 Confirmatory Order, Item A 5. urd is required to address the rrrrersys(em loss. of coolant accident (Fveni V I idcari!Ied in the WASH-)400.

By trarsfirring the requirement to perform

'hc purticuiar test from the Order item A.S rn

'.hc Trchr)ca)Specifications.

a new or d Iicreni kind of accident Ircrn ihut Irrr viousiy evaluated cannot be created.

3. Operauon of Indian poini Unit 2 in accordance with these changes would nor mvoive u sigmiicani reduction in u murgin oi siifcly.

TtrI: proposed Technical Specification test rr q <<rcmenr. which is ccrreniiy required by the February ll. 1980 Ccnfirmatory Order trrrn A.S. does not reduce nor change the mar(rrn of safely from that existing now. The proposed amendment only trursfcrs the requirement io perform the particular test frnm the Order Item A.S to the Technical Spec:frcarions. It has previously been dcmoirsrrated ihui by performing the test the

'argin of safety increases.

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether "sign) ficuni huzards corrsiderarions-exist by providing certain exan:oles at 48 FR 14870 (April8. 1983:

I.:rerrm Final Rule) and at 51 FR /744 (March

8. 1988: Final Rule).

Fi<<mple (ii)of 51 FR 7744 (Vol. 51. No. 44.

I'ac "Sl). which applies to the addition of rh<<c<<rvc! Itarce requirement in the Indian Irri rii Unit 2 Technical Specifications. siuies:

"(ri)a change thai constitutes an additional tin:it<<ruin. cesrricriori. or coritiot not presently iirriudrd in the technical specificut tons, e.g.. a irrircstringent surveillance requirement."

Iiiadditioir. example (I) of 51 FR 7744.

ivhich upp'lies to the ed(ter)a) changes. states:

"!".A pureiy administrative change io ii r)mica) spi cifications: for example. u ch<<nrrc ro achieve consistency throughout ihe tri.hrical specifications. correction of an error. or u change in nomenclature."

Therefore. since this application for airrcirdmcnt satisfies the criteria specilied in in CFR ~A,92. und is similar to examples for whir;h rio significant hazards considerations rxisr.!hc licensee has made a determination ihui ihe <<pplication involves no significant h izurds considerations.

The stuff agrees with the licensee's analysis. Therefore. based on the above.

the staff proposes that the'proposed amendment willnot involve a significant hazards consideration.

l.anal Poblic Document Room Incntionr White Plains Public Library.

100 Martiiie Avenue'. White Plains. New York 10810.

'ARarney for licensee: Brent L.

Brandenburg. Esq.

~ 4 Irving Place. New York. New York 10003 "lv'RCProject Director. Robert A.

Capra Duke Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50413 and 50-414. Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. York County, South Carolina Date ofamendment requestr April28, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amerdments would change the elevation at which seismic monitor 1MIMT5010 is located from 613'+8 9/16 to 588'+6 1/8'. This elevation is stated in Item 2.a. of Technical Specification (TS) Tables 3.3.

7 and 4.3<. The relocation of the monitor was required because of operability concerns associated with its previous location. A description of the inoperability and the plans to relocate the monitor were submitted by Duke Power Company in a special report dated February 24, 1989. The changes are applicable to Unit1 only. Unit 2 is included administratively because the TSs are combined in one document for both units.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards cansi deratian determination:

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

The proposed amendments would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the new location of the monitor meets the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.12. The monitor willbe operable and capable of performing its intended safety function.

The new location would not have any impact on the operation of station and would not affect the previously evaluated accidents.

The proposed amendments'would not create the possibility ofa new or different kind of'accident from any accident previou'sly evaluated because the monitor relocat(on would not introduce any new modes of operation.

Moreover. the inonitor would be operable and capable of performing its intended safety function.

The proposed amendments would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the proposed changes v ould alleviate the operability concern of the monitor. As such. they may enhance the safety margin.

Based on the above considerations.

the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: York County Library, 138 East Black Street. Rock i(ill.South Carolina 29730 Attorneyfor licensee: Mr. Albert Carr.

Duke Power Company, 422 South Church Street. Charlotte. North Carolina 28242 NRC Project Director: David B.

Matthews Duquesne Light Company, Docket No.

50-334. Beaver VaUey Power Station.

Unit No. 1, Shippingport. Pennsylvania Date ofamendment request: May 9.

1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications and associated Basis pages to permit use of upgraded Westinghouse fuel design in fuel cycle 8 and future cycles. The upgraded fuel design features include the VANTAGESH design features.

reconstitutable top nozzles, debris filter bottom nozzles, snag resistent grids and standardized fuel pellets. The licensee provided a Westinghouse report titled "Plant Safety Evaluation for Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 Fuel Upgrade and Increased Peaking Factors" to support the requested changes.

Basis forproposed na significant hazards consideration determinatianr The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazard consideration if operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase"in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously

'valuated, or (3),involve a significant

'eduction ln a margin of safety.

The licensee st'ated that the proposed changes have b'een assessed from a core design and safety analysis standpoint.

Feders>I Register / Vol. 54. No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 19BS / Notices Extensive reanalyses were undertaken to demonstrate compliance with the revis'ed technical specif>catinns. The methods used to pe.'.orm the analyses have been previously approved by the NRC. The results. which include transition core effects. show changes in the cnrso.quences nf accidents previn'.."ly evaluated. The results are all with>n.':RC acceptance c.iteria. The major components that determine the

'truc>ural in!egrity of the fuel assemLiy are the grids. Merhanical!esting and analysis of the VANTAGE5H Zircaloy grid and fuel assembly have domonsirated that the VANTAGE5H structural integrity under seismic/LOCA loads willprovide margins comparable to the currently used STD 17 x 17 fuel assembly design and willmeet all design bases. Therefore. ihe proposed amendment does not result ln an increase in the probabilities or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.

The proposed changes are improvements over. and are comparable to the existing core design. These changes do not signifirsntly affect the overall method and manner of plant operation. Thus no new accidents could result from these changes.

Finally, while new analyses were performed. the acceptance criteria would noi be changed from existing criteria. The new analyses show that the upgraded core design results in no siqnif>cant change in safety margin.

The staif therefore proposes to determine that the requested amendment involves no significant hazards considerstiora.

Local Public Docunissit Room location: B. F. Jones Memorial Library.

663 Franklin Avenue. Aliquippa.

Pennsylvania 15001.

A.'tos7>ey for lice~sees Gerald Charnoff. Fsquire. Jay E. Silberg.

Esquire. Shaw. Pit!man, Potts g Trowbr>dge. 2300 N Street. NW..

Vv'ashinp:nn. DC "003..

NRC Project Disectors John F. Stoiz Duqumne Ught Company, Docket No.

50-412. Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. ", Shtppingport, Pennsylvania Do>e n',s: >>ndn>art request: May 4.

'1!ld9 Lie cs ',los> n o't. s dn>es? t leqssests The pm Jnsed asrqndment woold revise the reactor!rip s'. s'rm nves!eniperature del>a T and overpo:i>.'r del!a T response times listed in Table 3.3 2 from 4.0 seconds to 5.5 seconds. The current design basis requirements for each of these reactor trip!otal response time is 6.0 seconds. This to!al response time is defined as the dc!ay from when the tempe>store in the re.icinr rnnlant loop excieds the trip setpcint uNilthe control rods are free to fall into the core.

An evaluation of the results of the initial startup test indicated that the 8.0second time response assumed in the FSAR was not met. The hcensee determined that the cnn'.iol rods were responding slower than expected. The proposed amendment would increase the above response times by 1.5 seconds to accommodate the slower response.

The licensee has evaluated the design-basis accidents a.'rected by this increase ard concluded that the negative effects on the consequences on these accidents are minimal and that all safety acceptance criteria continue to be met.

Basis forproposed no significont hozords consirlesrstion detemsination:

The Commission has provided standards for determ'ming whether a significant hazards consideration exists in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facihty involves no significant hazard consideration if operation of the facilityin accordance with the propos'ed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

As stated above. since reanalyses of design-basis accidents show that the increased response times have minimal effects. it follows that the proposed amendment would not involve any increase in the probability or consequences of previo>rsly analyzed accidents.

No hardware, software or opera>ional procedures are changed. Hence no new accidents could be createtL FinalIy, since no previously analyzed accidents are affected. no safety margins need to be reduced.

The staff therefore propiises to determine that the requested amendment involves no sig:iificant hazards considerations.

LocolPublic Document Roon>

, location: B. F. Jones Memorial Ubrary.

663 Franklin Avenue. Aliquippa.

Pennsylvania 15001.

Attorneyfor licensees Gerald Charnoff, Esquire. Jsy E. Silberg.

Esquire. Shaw, Pittman, Potts it>

Trowbridge. 2300 if Street. >XW.,

Washington. DC ~>l.

NRC Psrjdiect Diactors John F. Stolz Georgie Power Company, O~horpe Power Corport>tears, Muaicipei Bectric Authority of Gsorgssa, Cityof Daltor>,

Georgia, Docket Nor. SM34 sns>f 50-425.

Vogtle Electric Cenerating Pfant. Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia Dsste ofan>endss>erst request; May 9.

1989 Descripti os> of oss>essdss>ent requerl:

The proposed amendment revises the action requirements and surveillance requirements of Technical Specification 3S>4.6.1.6. "Containment Structural integrity" and its bases. The proposed changes to action requirements would eliminate unnecessary shutdowns by allowing for the performance of engineering evaluations of non-conform!ng corditiors. The proposed changes to surveillance requiremen;s incorporate plant speciiic design, installation. and material considerations. and provide greater detail regarding test methods and acceptance criteria.

Basis forproposed no significant hozards cosisidersstioss determinatios>s The Commission has provided Standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.9' proposed amendment to an operating hcense 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 accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new. or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated: or (3J involve a significant reductior> in a margin of safety.

In.regard to the proposed am>oddment, the licensee has determined the following;

1. The proposed change does nni >ni ob c s significant is>crcssc in tbs prnbsbiiiiy or cnnse>tucnccs of sn sccidqnt previously evsiusied. The proposed chsngc revises the scti<m requirements snd susvcitisnce requirements nf the Cnnisinmcnt Stsuciusal tnie>irityTcchnical Spectf>est!one. The chsngc does nnt involve any physical alteration of thc cantsinment or any chsnge tn s sc!point or operating psrsmcier. The

<<hangs does nnt sdd any new sqvipmcni which could be the source of a rssifoncunn nr sccident. Since thc change does ant sffeci cquipmcnt involved in the in>ttsttnn of previously cvslus!ed accidents. the prnbsbihiy of such accidents is nnt in<:ressed.

With respect tn the consequences of previously cvsius!ed accidents. the chsnge cnsnrcs that!he mi!igsiinn capability of the containment is not decreased. The proposed changes tn art!on ststements b snd r. src ss resiririivc ss those in ihc curie>it Technical Specifirsiinns in the sense ihsi s cond!>inn nf

>iign,f>cent suor vs>al integrity degssdetinn:s

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 1989 / Notices required io be corrected within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months or ihe unit(s) shut down. For conditions not involving significant degradation. the proposed action siaiemenis do not dictate unit shutdown: however. continued structural r<<pabiiiiy is required to be verified within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months . The proposed action statements cuniinue io require an engineering evaluation of deviations from acceptance cri!erie, The propcsed surveillance iequiiemenis provide gr;aier detail regarding test methods and acceptance cri>eiia. and incorporate Vogtle-specific design. installation. and material considerations. Removal of the upper limiton lift.oifforces eliminates needless entry into an action statement for a condition not involving abnormal degradation. Revisions to tendon deiensioning and retensioning requirements minimize ihe possibility of damage during testing, Performing visual inspections of end anchorages and adjacent surfaces durmg tendon surveillance as opposed to during Type A testing willresult in more uniform application of test criteria.

Based on the above discussion. the proposed action requirements and surveillance requirements assure that containment structural integrity willbe maintained ai or

<<bove ihe leuc! required by the current Technical Specifications. The coniainmeoi will. therefore. continue to be capable of mitigating acadents as discussed in FSAR Chapters 6 and ts. Hence. the consequences of previously evaluated accidents are not increased.

2. The proposed change does noi create the possibility of a new or different kind of

<<crident from any accident previously es alueied. The change does not add any new equipmeni io the plant or require any existing cquipmeni io be operated in a different manner from which it was designed io operate. Since a new failure mode is not introduced by the change. a new or different kind ol accident could not result.

3, The proposed change does not involve a sign>ficant reduction in a margin of safety.

The change does not affect any safety limits or I!miiingsafety system settings. The change does noi involve a reduction of acceptance cree>la where the potential for significant siruciural integrity degradation exists. The proposed action siaiemenis and surveillance ioquiremenis assure that the capability to withstand the maximum containment pnissure of 41.9 psig in the event of a main sieiim line break is maintained over the life nf ihe facility.Margins of safety are therefore noi decreased.

The NRC staff has reviewed the I!censee's determination and conrurs with its findings.

Ai.cordingly. the Commission p.":>poses to determine that the proposed i h>>nge involves no significant hazards ci>nsidcrations.

l.ocal Public Document Roi>u>

location: Burke County Public Library, 412 Fourth Street. Waynesboro. Ceorgiu

i()8'IO.

Artornei'forlicensee: Mr. Arthur H.

Doml>y. Troutman, Sanders. Lockormun und Ashmore. Candler Building. Suite 1400. 121 Peachtree Street. N.E.. Atl<<nta.

C<iorgia 30043.

l>lRCProject Director. David B.

Matthews Power Authority of the State of New York. Docket No. 50-333. James A, FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.

Oswego. New York Dote of oa>endment request: April 24, 1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise Specification 3.12.A.1.b to correctly identify the High Pressure Water Fire Protection System boundary. As currently written, this specification could be misinterpreted to imply the existence of water flow alarms on the hose station risers. System design includes water flowalarms on the water spray and sprinkler systems. but does not include such alarms on the hose station risers.

The design of the system has been reviewed and approved in the Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report issued by the NRC on August 1. 1919.

Additionally, the monthly surveillance requirements in Specifications 4.12.A and 4.12.D ensure the integrity of the hose station and riser.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination: In accordance with thd Commission's Regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, the Commission has made a determination that the proposed amendment Involves no significant hazards considerations.

To make this determination the staff must establish that operation of the facilityin accordance witlithe 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 riew or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin. of scfety.

The licensee has evaluated the proposed amendment and determined that it is purely administrative in nature and provides a clarification to the Technical Specifications. Operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant hazards consideration as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. since lt would not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The intent of the proposed change is purely administrative in naiure io clarify the Technical Specifications.

There are no changes to setpoints, safety limits. surveillance requirements. or limiting conditions for operation. These changes will have no impact on previously evaluated accidents.

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change is purely administrative in nature and is intended to clarify and improve the quality of the Tcchnical Specification. The change cannot create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed changes is purely administrative in nature and clarifies and improves the qualiiy of the Technical Specifications. This change does not contain any setpoint or safety limitchanges regarding isolation or alarms. The proposed change does not affect the environmental monitoring program. This change does not affect the plant's safety systems and does not reduce any safety margins.

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 of New York, Penfield Library. Reference and Documents Department, Oswego. New York 13126.

Attorneyfor licensee: Mr. Charles M.

Pratt. 10 Columbus Circle. New York.

New York 10019.

i>lRC Project Director: Robert A.

Capra Power Authorityof the State of New York, Docket No. 50-333, James A.

FitzPatrick Nuciear Power Plant, Oswego. New York Date ofamendment request: April24.

1989 Description ofamendment request:

The proposed amendment would remove the Technical Speciflcatlon (TS) requirement to perturb the reactor vessel water level as part of the monthly functional test for the reactor water low level scram instruments. The test involves changing the reactor water level setpoint using the feedwater control system and visually noting that the level change is reflected by appropriate level instruments. The licensee noted that the test is an operational inconvenience.

Is not a regulatory requirement. is not required by the Standard Technical Specifications. and is superfluous to the existing level instrument checks required by TS Section 4.1. Table 4.1-1, Note (8). Specifically. the proposed amendment would remove the reference to Note (5) from Table 4.1-1 on page 44 and delete Note (5) from the "Notes for Table 4.1-1" on page 45a.

Basis forproposed no significont hazords consideration determinatioru In accordance with the Commission's

25376 Federal Register, / Vol. 54. No. 113 ( Wednesday, June 14. 1989 I Yotices Regu,'ations in 10 CFR 50.92. the Commission has made a determination that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards considerations.

To make this c(etermination the staff hiust establish that operation of the f3ci!ityin acccr~ance with the proposed amendmunt wnu(d nnt: (I) involve a significart increase in Ihe prohab! lityor consequences of'an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the pcssiLili!yof a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously cvulua.'cd. or (3) involve a significant redui;tion in a margin of safety.

The licensee has evaluated the proposed TS charge and determined that they are administrative in nature and promote consistency with the Standard Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not involve modification of any. existing equipment.

systems. or components; nor do they alter the conclusions of the plant's accident analyses or radiological release analyses. Further. operation of the FitzPatrick Plant in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant hazards consideration as stated in 10 CFR 50.92 since it would not:

1. Involve s significant increase in the probability or consequences af an accident previously evaluated. The proposed

, Technical Specifica>ion changes Io delete the requirements In Tabki 4.1.1 to perturb the reactor water level after funcuonai tests of water level scrain instruments is edminisirative in nature. The operabitity of the level sensors and trip charm is are being adequately verified by other surveii!ance requirements which are consistent with the RPS design basis. the Siarwlard Technical

., Specifications. and the vendnr's (GE]

recommendations for ATTS compenenls (Generat Electric Topical Report NEDO-21817.A and accompanying NRC letter of approval dated (une 27. 1N8).

The proposed changes do aot.involve modification of sny existing equipment, systems. or components: nor do they alter Ibe conclusions of the piani's accident analyses or rsdinlogicat reIPese analyses as documented In the FSAR or the NRC Staffs SER.

2. Create the peiisibilityof a new or different k(nd of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes are administrative in nature snd do not introduce any new faiiiue modes. They do nui involve modification tc any of the plant's equipment, systems. or components: nor do Ibey place the plant in en unsnaIyzed configuration.

3. Involve a signiiicsni reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed changes affect the capability for checking the operational availability of tbe sensor inputs Io the Reactor Protection System (RPSI.

Consistent with Ibe IEEE.2".9-1921. the deletion of ihe periubation requirement does noi degrade the RPS design basis because each ot ibe rescioi water level sensors are i>eicg cmsswhecked with each other en a daily I>asis. The propnsed change deletes a superliuous Ics:ing requirement snd does not invotve modification of the plant's systems.

equipment. or components.

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

Local Public Dacument Room locut~'cnr State University of New York.

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

Attorney for licensee: Mr. Charles M.

Pratt, 10 Columbus Circ(e. New York.

New York 10019.

itiRCProject Director: Robert A.

Capra Public Service Electri h Gas Company, Docket No. SMS4, Hope Creek-Generating Station, Sa)em County, New Jersey Date ofamendment request: Ifay 5.

1989 Descriptio ofamendment request:

Increase the channel functional test surveillance intervals for various Control Rod Block instrumentation.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards oansideratian determination:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facility in accordance wi!h the proposed amendment would not (1) Invo)ve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated: (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated: or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.92 the licensee has reviewed the proposed changes and has concluded as follows that they do not involve a significan hazards consideration:

1. Do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluatecL As detailed in NEDC-30851P-A, Supplement 1 the sequence of events necessary for on umnitigated rod withdrawal error includes failure of the Local Power Range Monitor (LPRM). failure ofthe Average Power Range Monitor (APRM) upscale trips. failure of Ihe APRM upscale rod block. dual channel failure of the Rod Block Monitor. and of course operator failure to recognize and respond Io aiiy of tbese events. The BWR

'wner's Grnup evsiusieii Ihe impact of incrrased STIs on iha probability ofcontrol rod block f.iiiure aiid conclude d Ihai a rather small increase in scram frequency results.

However. both the absolute snd relative increase is acceptably low and offset by Ihe bene(its of extending the Res@or Protection System (RPS) test intervals ((see NEDC. 3OSSIP and the PSEaG to NRC submittal dated February L 1989.)) Therefore. it can be concluded that the proposed changes do not involve s significant increase in tbc probability of sn accident previously evaluated.

The consequences of an unmitigated rod withdrawal error were also addressed in NEDC-38851P-A. Supplement 1. Specilicaliy.

such an incident is very mild compared Io Ihe limitingreaciiviiy accident

~ a control rod drop accident. Tbe BWR Owner's Group indicated Ibat the severiiy of a control rod drop accident bounds a rod withdrs wet error due to the higher rate of reactivity addition.

HCGS Updated Final Safety Analysts Report (UFSAR) Section 15.4$ and Tables 15,4-15 siid 15.4.21 provides the plant specific evaluation of the coatrol rod drop ecridPnt.

As a result of consequences of a rod withdrawai error were shown to be substantially less than those associated with a dropped rod accident snd less Ihsn 1st of the specified site boundary dose limits. This low consequeiice combined with Ihe low probability of an unmitigated rod edihdrawal error results In a negligible increase in risk which is offset by decreased risks associated with reduced testing of rod block and RPS instrumentation.

2. Do not create the possibility of a new nr different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

The increa~ Control Rod Block surveillance test Intervals do not alter the function of the instrumentation nor Involve any type of plant modification. Additionally.

no new modes of plant operation are Involved with these changes. Therefore. II can be concluded that the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new nr different kind of accident than any accident previously evaluated.

3. Do not involve a signiiicant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed and appruveii the generic study contained In Licensing Tnpical Report NEDC-39851 P.A. Supplement I and hus concurred with the BWR Owner's Group ihat the proposed changes do noi significantly affect the reliability or availability of the Control Rod Block instrumeuiaiiou. Hence it can be conciudeii thai thP proposed changes do not sdvrrseiy affect plant safety margins.

The staff reviewed the licensee's determiration that the proposed license amendment involves no sign(ficiint hazards consideration and agrees with the licensee's analysis. Accordingly. Ihe stuff proposes to determine that the proposed license amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

local Public Document Room lonatiom Pennsuil(e Public library.190 S.

Broadway, Pennsvil(e. New Jersey 08070 A>tnrnryfor licensee: Troy B. Conner.

Jr.. Esquire. Conner and Wetterhahn.

Federal Rag(ster / Vol. 54, No, 11S / Wednesday, June 14, 1989 / Notices 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW Washington. DC 20008 NRC Project Director. Walter R.

Butler Public Se~4ce Electric 5 Gas Corapany, Docket No. 50-311. Salem Generating Station, Unit No. 2, Sa! ein County, New

)ersey Dole af amendnient request: May 5, 1989 Descri parian ofamendmenr request:

The licensee proposes to revise Section 4.7.9.e.l of the Salem Unit 2 Technical Specifications. The change willdelete an aspect of mechanical snubber surveillance test acceptance criteria which requires a verification that the snubber drag force has not increased more than 50% since the previous functional test. This change was approved for Salem Unit 1 on an emergency basis on May 12, 1989.

Basis forproposed na significant hazards cansideralian determinariani The existence of the 50% drag force increase criterion in the mechanical snubber inservice inspection program represents an unnecessary constraint on the verification of snubber operability.

A snubber with a drag force greatly below the specified liinitmay experience an increase in drag force that is small in absolute terms. but exceeds 50% of the previous test result. This results in an increase in the test population under the present program.

The snubber manufacturer (Pacific Scientific) has published a test report related to mechanical snubber drag force loading (Test Report 871, dated April13, 1984). The results of these tests indicate that an increase in drag force from one inspection period to the next does not establish a trend that can be used to predict pending snubber failure.

The proposed change does not change the following aspects of the snubber surveillance program:

1. Visual inspections and associated acceptance criteria, which include manual certification of freedom of movement where possible.

2. Retesting of any snubbers and/or replacements which failed the previous test.

3. Testing of ull snubbers of the same design as a snubber selected for functional testing that fails to move or fails to lockup due to a design or manufacturin defect.

4. Verification that the drag force is less than the specifiied allowable value.

5. Verification that activation is achieved within the range of velocity or acceieration specified for both tension and compression.

6. Verlfkation ofacceptable release rate or ability to withstand load without displacement, as applicable.

7. Compliance with ASME Section XI per Technical Specification 4.0.5.

The measures listed above comprise an adequate program for assuring snubber operability. Verifying that drag force is within its specified allowable limit(Item 4 above) ls the primary means of determining that the drag force is acceptable. The requirement being deleted by this proposed change may cause an unnecessary increase in the snubber test population even ifthe drag force is well below the acceptance criteria. This represents an inappropriate use of resources and an increase in radiation worker exposure.

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a signiTicant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityInvolves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation of the facifity in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase ln 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 Hcensee has analysed the proposed amendment to determine ifa significant hazards consideration exists:

%)Operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed smendmsnt would not Involve a stgntitcant Incrssas in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The aspects of the snubber Inspection program discussed (in Section Ill)above address the needed snubber functional requirements snd should therefore be deemed acceptable for determining snubber operability. The proposed change does not adversely affect the snubber inspection program. The relevant spectficd parameters for each snubber subjected to functional testing willstill be verified to be within allowable limits. Consequently, the proposed change does not Increase the likelihood of snubber liioperabiltty, nor doss It increase the adverse effects of such Inoperability on the associated systems.

The siiubbers are Included in the system desfgn io mitigate the effects ofa seismic event and allow for thermal expansion of the piping. The functional testing descrtbed above willdetermine the capability of the snubber to meet these requireiaents. The M%

drag force load compsrtson currently required by Technical Specificstioa 4.7.9.e.1 does nol suppiemeiit the operability determination of the snubber and can be deleted without adverse Impact on the associated system.

Therefore. Iimay be concluded ihst the proposed change does not involve a slgnlficant increase in the piobabiiity or consequeaces of aa scckiarit prsriousiy evaluated.

2)Operation of the fscIIItyin accordance with the proposed smendinent would not create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any previously evaluated.

The proposed change does not Inrolre changes io the design or spplicsiion of snubbers. It does noi involve any design or configurstton changes to the plant. No new accident scsnarios or new component failure mechanisms are introduced. Therefore. itmay be concluded that the proposed cbange does not create the possibility of e new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

3)Operation of the facilityIn accordance with the proposed amendment would not Involve a significant reduction in s margin of safety.

Snubbers provide assurance that ihe structural Integrity of the fiuidsystems subjected to dynaailc loads Is maintained.

The margin of safety sssocisted with snubbers is related io the specified allowable limits imposed on performance parameters, including maximum allowable drag force.

This change proposes to delete a teat acceptance criterion related to a change In the measured drag force, snd does not Increase the meximum slIowabIe value.

Therefore, It msy be concluded that the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a msigin of safety as defined by the Tectuitcsl Specifications.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal and signlGcant hazards analysis and concurs with the Hcensee's determination that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Therefore, the staff proposes to determine that the proposed amendment involves no sigalficant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Salem Free Public library, 112 West Broadway, Salem, New )ersey 08079 htiorney forlicensee: Mark ),

Wetterhahn, Esquire, Conner and Wetterhahn, Suite 1050. 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 NRC Project Director: Walter R.

Butler Sacramento MuaIcipal UtilityDistrict, Docket No. SM12, Rancho Seco Nudear Generating Station, Sacrtimaato Couaty, California Dote ofamendment request: February

28. I986, revised May 14, 1987. as supplemented August 31. l988 Descriptio ofamendment request:

The proposed Technical Specificatiois amendment would change Tabb 3.6-1 of the Rancho Seco specifications. Tabb 3.6-1 contains a list ofcontainment isolation valves with a notation

25378 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 123' Wednesday, June

14. 1989 / Notices indicating the maximum peimissible closure time for'each valve. The proposed change would include administrative changes to the table. add 12 previously installed valves to the table. decrease the maximum closure time for the reactor coolant pump seal return valve from 71 seconds to less than 60 seconds, and revise the maximum permissible closure time for

'elected valves. The maximum closure time for these valves is presently between 3 and 21 seconds and the proposed change would increase the permissible maximum closure time to 25 seconds.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideratian determinotion:

The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR Part 50.92. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards considerations if operation of the facilityin accordance

'ith a proposed amendment would not:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or'consequences of an accident previously evaluated: (2)

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

Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Standard I - Involve a Significant Increasein the Prababi%'ty or Consequences ofan Accirlent Previously Evaluated

'The proposed amendment would increase the maximum closure time to 25 seconds for selected containment isolation valves that are not in direct flow paths from the containment atmosphere to the environment. The in'crease in closure time to 25 seconds of these selected isolation valves has. by licensee analysis. been determined to result in offsite doses that remain within 10 CFR Part 100.11 limits. The licensee determined that at a maximum closure lime of 25 seconds.

these selected containment isolation valves would not allow a radiation release to the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) or Low Population Zone (LPZ) during the worst accident condition (LOCA) that would exceed the limits of 10 CFR Part 100.11.

This change would not involve an increase in the proba-bilityof an accident previously evaluated but does slightly increase the radiological releases above the values from the previous analysis. The licensee contends that the radiation releases to the EAB and LPZ under the worst accident conditions would result in radiation exposures that are well below the guideline values allowed by 10 CFR Part 100.11.

The proposed amendment would decrease the maximum closure time of the reactor coolant pump seal return valve (SFV-24004) from 71 seconds to less than 60 seconds. This is a more restrictive requirement and compiles with Standard Review Plan (SRP) 6.2.4, therefore. not increasing the probability or consequences of an accident.

The proposed amendment would add 12 valves to Table 3.6-1. These containment isolation valves were installed during the 1983 refueling outage and adding the valves to Table 3.6-1 is purely administrative.

Based on the above, the proposed amendment does not, therefore.

significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Standard 2-Create the Possibi%'ty of a New or Different KindofAccident From AnyAccident Previously Evaluoted The proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from what had been previously evaluated. The increase of maximum closure times of the selected containment isolation valves does not introduce a design or operational change that could result in a new or different accident potential that would be worse than the LOCA already considered.

The proposed amendment would add 12 valves to Table 3.8-1. These containment isolation valves were installed during the 1983 refueling outage. Adding the valves to Table 3.8-1 does not change the function of the valves and is considered to be purely administrative.

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

Stondard 3-Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin ofSafety The proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Although increasing the maximum closure times of the containment isolation valves from the presently specified range of from 3 to 21 seconds. to 25 seconds, does represent a slight increase in exposure, licensee calculations confirm that there remains an adequate margin to the guideline exposures established in 10 CFR Part 100.11. Additionally. the proposed amendment would add 12 valves to Table 3.6-1. These containment isolation valves were installed during the 1983 refueling outage. Adding these valves to Table 3.8-1 does not affect the design bases or function of the valves. and is considered to be purely administrative.

Based on the above. the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Loco/ Public Document Aooni locotion: Martin Luther'King Regional Library, 7430 24th Street Bypass.

Sacramento, California 95822.

Attorneyforlicensee: David S.

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

Sacramento, California 95813 h'RC Project Director: George W.

Knighton Tennessee Valley Authority, Dockets Nos. 50-259, 50-260 and 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama Date ofamendment requesttu May 15, 1989 (TS 289)

Description ofamendment requestst The proposed amendment would change the BFN technical specifications (TS) for Units 1, 2, and 3 to administratively revise the pilot cell voltage in 4.11.B.3.a(3). In addition. this proposed amendment would update TS SR 4.7.E.4 to include a newly installed damper in the control room emergency ventilation system.

Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The Commission has provided Standards for determining whether a significant hazards determination exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). 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 50,92. the licensee has performed and provided the followinganalysis:

1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of any accident previously evaluated. These proposed changes do not change or amend any safety analysis for BFN.

Damper FCO-150 G is being added as a result of a Design Change Notice. This dumper is required to close upon initiation of the control room emergency ventilation system (CREVSI. Adding the damper io the CREVS system assists in the isolation function of the control room tn the event of an accident requiring CREVS io operate. The

'0 Federsil Register / Vol. 54, No. 113 / Wednesday, Jttae 14; 19QO / Notic88 addition of this damper does not Invalidate the safety ansi ysis nor beses in which BFN was 1fcensed fnr.

Thr battery pifnt cell vo!iage in BFN Surveillance Requirement 4.11.B3.a(3) is currenify 24 volts which Is incorrect. The cotvecl vafue is 2.0 vofls. Tbfs is an administrative error which was not corrected in the BFN August 30.1988 subrnfttaf.

Changing this i fue is cnnsfstent wiih tf:e cur.ent pIent cnnfiituratfnn whfch has been verified through surveillance testing. This change does not change the operation of any safety refated equ'pmen!. R only corrects an crrnr in order io nore accureiefy reflect the batteries curreiitfy installed in the plant.

2. The propcsed amendment does not cr aie the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evuiuated.

The addition of the damper FCO.I50 G. and charging the pffnt cell vofiege to "-.0 volts more accurate!y reflect the rurrent desfgn and operations of BFN. These changes do not create any new ac<Ident mnde or release pathway of radioactive effliients to 0ie environment.

3. The proposed amen Jment does not involve any significant reduction In a margin of safety. The proposed amendment brings the technical speciiicatinns more fn compliance with the actual design an J operation ol BFN.

The addition nf damper FCO.150 G, and changing tbe pffot voftaffe to read 2.0 volts are admfnfstretfve in niitum. Consistent with 10 CFR 50.38. damper FCO 15O G is being added to the TS. The addition of this additional damper not only reflects ihe current plant configuration but afso provides additional isolation capabfbiy for the main control room. This willenhance the overall safety to the main control room operators.

Revising the pilot cell voltage brings the current TS fn compliance with the physical capabilities ol the battery.

These changes provide an overall enh incemeni io plant safety with proper operation of plant equi pmer.t. These changes do not significantly decrease the margin of saleiy.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's ana!ysis. Therefore, the staff proposes to determine that the application for amendments involves no significant hazards considerations, Loci;/Public Docijment Room locatiiimAthens Public Library. South Street. Athens. Alabama 35611.

A!torneyf>>i licensee: General Counsel. Tennessee Valley hutho".',ty.

'00 West Summit Hill Drive, E11 833.

Knoxville.Tennessee 37902.

iVRCAssiatnnt Directnr". Suzanne Blark Tennessee Valley Authority, Dockets Nos. 50-259, 50-260 aud 5n 296, Browne Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit-1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama Dale ofaa>eai.n)elit lpitllesls: Mav 15.

1969 (TS 270)

Descripti'oa ofamendment reifaestst The proposed amendment would change the BFN technical specifications (TS) for Units 1. 2. and 3 to update surveiBance

, requirement 4.6.A.3 and revise the Bases section 3.6/4h to comply with 10 CFR Par't 50 Appendix H for reactor vessel test specimen testing frequency.

Basis forproposed ne signijicant ha ards cansideratian determinatiom The Commission has provided Standards for determining whether a significant hazards determination exfsts as stateu 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 Ifte standards in Section 50.92, on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. Therefore, in accordance wi!h 10 CFR 50.91 and 10 CFR 50.9? the licensee has performed and provided the followinganalysis:

1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase fn the probability or consequence of any accident previously evaiu-ated. This fs an administrative change fn that ft only updates the BFN teclinical specification to comply with tbe 10 CFR 50 Appendix H. This pteposed amendment does not change or inodify any safety related equipment, fts operation. or safety analysis in which BFN is licensed for.

Updating the TS to ASTM E18542 increases the frequency for reactor vessel specimen withdrawal from 8 effective fuII power years IEFPY) to 8 EFPY. This increase in frequency does not involve eny sulety issue. The procedures and methods ol with driiwing these specimens willremain the siime.

2. The proposed change does not create the possfbffity of a new or different kind of accident from any accident prevfousiy evaluated. This change is adminfstra!ive in that it only updates BFN reactor vessel specimen program to ASTM E 18542.

Implementation of this change does not change any equipment or modify any actions required for mitigation of any accident cuivently analyzed In tbe BFN FSAR. This change does not create any additional radiation release pathways to the environment.

3. The proposed amendment does not involve any significant reduction in a margin of safety. The change upds! es the BFN

'eactor vessel specfmen witAdrawef program fn accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix H requirements. BFN has agreement with NRC to withdraw the flrst specimen from each unit after 8.0 EFPY. After the first specfmen fs pulled from each unit, subsequent specimens willbe pulled at a 8.0 EFPY.

The statf has reviewed the licensee's nn significant hazards consideration determinatii.n and agrees with the licensee's a ialysis. Therefore, the staff proposes to determine that the application for amendments involves no significant hazards considerations.

Local Ptablia Daaumerrt Room location: Athens Public Library. South Street, Athens, Alabama 35611.

Attorneyforlicensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority.

400 West Summit HillDrive, E11 B33, Knoxvine, Tennessee 37902.

.VRCAssistant Director: Suzanne Black NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACIUTY OPERATING LICENSE 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 compiles with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and Ihe Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in10 CFR Chapter I. which are set forth in the license amendment..

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated. No request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed followingthis notice.

Unless otherwise indicated,'the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR SMZ(b). no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. Ifthe Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.

For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendments.

(2) the amendments, and (3) the Commission's related letters.

, Safety Evaluations and/or Environmental Assessments as indicated. Allof these items are available forpublic inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room.

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street. NW.,

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

25380 Federal Reg(ster / Vol. 54. No. 113 / Wednesday; June 14, 1989 / Notices DC 205SS. Attention: Director. Division ofReactor Projects.

Alabama Power Company, Docket Nos.

50448 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama.

Dales ofoppiicotion for amendments:

August 11. 1988. as supplemented July

22. 1987.

Description ofamendments: The amendments extend the expiration dates of the lic'enses from August 16.

2012 to June 25. 2017 for Unit1 and from August 16, 2012 to March 31. 2021 for Unit 2.

Dole ofissuonce: May 19. 1989 Effective dale: May 19. 1989, Amendment Nos.: 81 and 73 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF.2 and NPF-8. Amendments revise the Licenses.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register: September

24. 1988 (S1 FR 33939). Because the July 22. 1987 submittal only clarified certain aspects of the original request. the substance of the changes noticed in the Federal Register and the proposed no significant hazards determination were not

'ffected. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 19. 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments receivedr No Local Public Document Room location: George S. Houston Memorial Library. 212 W. Burdeshaw Street

~

Dothan, Alabama 36303.

Arizona Public Service Company, et al, Docket Nos. STN 50-528. STN 50-529.

and STN 50-530. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Units 1, 2 and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona Date ofoppiicotion foramendments:

November 9. l988 Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments revise Technical Specifications Section 3/4.4.5, "Reactor Coolant System Leakage" by changing the operability requirements of the containment radioactivity monitoring systems and the associated action statement.

Dote ofissuonce: May 23, 1989 Effective date: May 23, 1989 Amendment Nos.: 43, 28. 17 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-

41. NPF-51 ond NPF-Iver Amendments changed the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinilioinoticein Federal Register. March 8, 1989 (54 FR 9913). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 23, 1989 No significant hozards consideration comments lecei ved: No.

Local Pubiic Documenl Room location: Phoenix Public Library.

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

Arkansas Power sr Light Company, Docket No. 50-313. Arkansas Nuclear One. Unit 1, Pope County, Arkansas Date ofoppiication foromendment:

December 12. 1986 Briefdescription ofamendment. This amendment changed the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Technical Specifications to remove the text of several temporary specifications which are no longer applicable, regarding gross iodine determination. the sodium thiosulfate system, and the borated water storage tank. The amendment also made several changes to correct typographical errors, and revised wording to provide consistent terminology. It was noted that several of the typographical errors no longer existed and no change was therefore necessary.

Date ofissuance: May 25, 19N Effective date: May 25. 19N Amendment No.: 121 Facility Operating License No. DPR-

51. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitialnoticein Federal Register: April22, 1987 (52 FR 13333).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 25, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Loca/ Public Document Room iocotion: Tomlinson Ubrary, Arkansas Tech University. Russellvllle. Arkansas 72801 Arkansas Power sr Ltght Company, Docket No. SO@68, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Pope County, Arkansas Date ofapplications foramendment; December 12, 1986 Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment changed the Arkansas Nuclear One. Unit 2 Technical Specifications (TS) which describe the design features of the Spent Fuel Storage Pool. These changes update the TS to conform with Amendment No. 43 which increased the spent fuel storage capacity for the plant.

Date ofissuance: May 23. 1989 Effective date: May 23, 1989 Amendment No, 95 Foci%'ly Operating License No. NPFW Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofiniliainoticein Federal Register: April19. 19N (54 FR 15821).

The Commission's related evalurttion of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 23. 1989.

No significant hazords considenttion comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room iocotion: Tomlinson Library. Arkansas Tech University, Russellville. Arkansas 72801 Arkansas Power 8r Light Company, Docket Nos. 5M13 and 50-368. Arkansas Nuclear One. Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas Dates ofamendment requests: March 20 and 24, 1985 Briefdescription ofomendmentsr The amendments deleted the remaining portions of the Appendix "B"Technical Specifications for Arkansas Nuclear One. Units 1 and 2. which consisted of a description of land use management for the site and the transmission line right of ways.

Date ofissuance: June 1. 1989 Effective date: June 1. 1989 Amendment iVos.: 122 and 96 Facility Operating License Nos, DPR-51 ond NPF<. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. June 29. 1985 (50 FR 25481) and May 21. 1985 (50 FR 20970). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 1. 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Roonr location: Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Tech University. Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Baltimore Gas and Electric Company.

Docket Nos. 50-317 and SM18. Calvert CliffsNuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Calvert County, Maryland.

Date ofapplication foramendmenls:

April14. 1988 as supplemented on April 28, 1987 Briefdescription ofamendmenls:

These amendments modify Technical Specification 3/4.8.2.3, "Electrical Power Systems: D.C. Distribution - Operating."

by deleting the dummy load profile for the 18-month station battery service test from TS Surveillance Requirement 4.8.2.3.2.d.2 and instead now specify that the load profile is documented in Chapter 8 of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and shall be update in accordance with the 10 CFR S0.71(e). Modifications of the UPSY load profile shall be made in accordance with the process described in 10 CFR 5059.

Dole ofissuonce: May 18. 1989;

Federal Regfster / Vol. 54," No. 1%3 / Wednesday, June 14, 1989 / Notices Effective dale: 14 days after the licensee's issuance of a notarized letter the Commission providing official certification of the completion. approval and implementation. in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR SO.S9, of a new station battery design load study for current plant conditions.

, Amendment Nos.: 137 and 120 Focilily Operating License Nos. DPR-63 and DPR~. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinilialnotice in Federal Register. October 18, 1988 (53 FR 40982).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 18, 1989.

No significont hazards consideration comments received. No LocolPublic Document Room location: Calvert County Library, Prince Frederick. Maryland.

NRC Project Director. Robert A.

Capra Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 5M17 and 50-318, Calvert CliffsNuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland Dale ofapplication for amendments:

January 20, 1987 as supplemented on January 12. and June 28, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendments:

These atnendments delete the current requirement of Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 4.6.4.1.2.c to verify that the containment purge air inlet valves (CPA-1410-CV and CPA-1411-CV) and the containment purge air outlet valves (CPA-1412.CV and CPA-1413CV) close to their actuation positions upon receiving a safety injection actuation system (SIAS) test signal. In addition, reference to the SIAS action of the containment purge valves would be deleted from TS Tables 3.3-3, "Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation," Table 324, "Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation Trip Valves,"

and Table 4.3-2, "Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Surveillance Requirements."

Dole ofissuance: May 31, 1989 Effer live dole: May 31. 1989 Amendment Nos.: 13L 121 FocililyOperating License Nos. DPR-63 and DPR-6R Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Dale ofinilialnolicein Federal Register. May 1. 19N (54 FR 18815). The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 1989.

No significont hozords consi derail on comments received: No Local Public Document Room locoliom Calvert County Library, Prince Frederick. Maryland.

NRC Pmj ecl Director. Robert A.

Capra Carolina Power tt Light Company, et al Docket Nos. 50.325 and 5M24, Brunswick Steam Electric. Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina Date ofapplication foromendmenls:

February 1. 1989 Description ofamendments: The amendments delete instrument tag numbers from the Technical Specifirations, delete one-time TS exceptions that were added as footnotes, and provide other editorial and administrative changes.

Dole ofissuance: May 22, 1989 Effective dote: May 22, 1989.

Amendmenl Nos.: 130 and 160 Facility OperoliIigLicense Nos. DPR-7t and DPR.82. Amendments revise the Technical Specifications, Dote ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. April5. 19N (54 FR 13759), The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained In a Safety Evaluation dated May 22, 1989.

No significonlhazards consideiotion comments recei ved: No.

Local Public Documenl Room locoliom University of North Carolina at Wilmington, WilliamMadison Randall Library. 601 S. College Road, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297.

Carolina Power 5 Light Company, et al Docket Nos. 5M25 and SM24, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick,County, North Carolina Dale ofapplication for omendmenls:

September 4. 1987, as amended and supplemented by letters dated April6, 1988. February 20, 1989 and March 20.

1989.

Description ofamendments: The amendments change the Technical Specifications to (1) modify specifications having cycle specific parameter limits by replacing the values of those limits with a reference to the Core Operating Limits Report for the values of those limits and (2) dslete the redundant finear heat generation rate limitfrom the specifications.

Date ofissuance: May 25, 19N

'ffective date: May 25, 1S89 Amendment Nos, 131 and 161 Faci lilyOperating License Nos. DPR-71 ond DPR42. Amendments revise the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofiniliolnoticein Federal Register. April19. 1989 (54 FR 15822).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments fs contained ln a Safety Evaluation dated May 25, 1989 No significant hazords consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: University of North Carolina at Wilmington. WilliamMadison Randall Library, 601 S. College Road, Wilmington, North Carolina 284034297.

Carolina Power br Light Company, et al.,

Docket Ko. 50400, Sheazon Hams Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Date ofopplicolion foramendmenl:

February 2?. 1989 Briefdescription ofomendmenl: The amendment would modify (1) the most negative moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) limitingcondition for operation (LCO), (2) the associated surveillance requirements (SR). end (3) the effected basis. The purpose of this LCO and SR is to ensure that the most negative MTC at end.of~cle (EOC) remains within the bounds of the Hams safety analysis, in particular. for those transients and accidents that can lead to a moderator temperature decrease (cooldown) or. equivalently, a moderator density increase.

Date ofissuonce: May 22, 1989 Effective dote: May 22, 1989 Amendment No.: 11 FaciIRy Operating License No. NPF-

83. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnolicein Federal Register. April19, 1989 (54 FR 15823).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 22, 19N.

No significant hazards consideration comments leceived: No Attorneyfor the Licensee: R. E Jones, General CounseL Carolina Power b Light Company, P. O. Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Local Public Document Room locoliolu Cameron Village Regional Library, 1930 Clark Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27805.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket No. SH$ 4 and 5M55, Byron Statio!4 Units 1 Iind Ry Ogle County>

Illinois;Docket Nos. 60468 and, 60461, Braldwood Station, Unit Noa 1 and?

WIIICounty, illinois Dote ofapplication for omendmenl:

December 23, 1987, supplemented April 3, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendment:

These amendments modify Technical Specificiatlon Tables 3.3-1 and 4.3-1. as requested in Generic Letter 8549, for Reactor Trip System Automatic

25382 Fedezal Regbttez / Vot. 54. No. 113 / Wednesday.

June 14, 1988 / Notices actuaction using shunt trip coil at tachmentL Qate ofissuance: May 22, 1989 Effective dale: May 22, 1989 Amendment No.r 28 for Byron and 17 for Braidwood Facility Operating License Nas. NPF-

37. NPF re. NPF-72 and NPF-77r The amendment revised the Technical Specification Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. April19. 1989 (54 FR 15824).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 22. 1989.

¹ significant hazards consideration comments received: No Local Public Document Room.

location: For.Byron Sla lion. Rockford Pubhc Library. 215 N. Wyman Street, Rockford. Illinois 61101: for Braidwood Station~ the Wilmington Township Public Library. 201 S. Kankakee Street.

Wilmington, illinois 60481.

Commonwealth Edison Company.

Docket Nos.59-295 and 50-304. Zioa Nuclear Power Station. Unit Nos. 1 and

2. Lake County, Illinois Date ofapplication for amendmentsr March 25, 1985, supplemented April17.

1989 and May 10, 1989.

Briefdescription ofomendments:

These amendments revise Tables 3.1-1 and 4.1'-1 of the Technical Specifications for Zion units to address operabiLty and surveillance requirements for Reactor Trip Breakers in accordance with Generic Letter 8548.

Date ofissuance: May 30, 1989 Effective date: May 30, 1989 Amendment Nas.i 116. 105 Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-39 and DPRA8. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Dole ofinitialnotice ia Federal Register. May 21. 1985 (50 FR 20973) and April28. 1989 (54 FR 18387). The Commission's related evaluation of lhe amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30. 1989.

Na significant hazards considerati on commenls received: No Local Public Document Room locatiom Waukegan Public Library. 128 N. County Street. Waukegan. I!Iinois 60085.

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Docket No. 50-213, Haddam Neck Plant, Middlesex County.

Connecticut Dale ofapplication foromendmenl:

April26. 1986. supplemented May 30, 1989.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment adds a new Technical Specificalion (TS) section on Reactor

'oolant System Leakage Detection Systems. This TS willprovide hmiting conditions of operation and surveillance requirements for the Reactor Coolant System Leakage Detection Systems.

With the issuance of the Technical Specification, Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) Topic V-5, "Reactor Coofant Pressure Boundary Leakage Detection" is considered closed.

Dale ofIssuance: May 31, 2989 Effective date: May 31. 1989 Amendment No, 116 Foci%'ty Operating License ¹. DPR-8L Amendmer.t revised the Technical Specifications, Dale ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. May 21, 1988 (51 FR 18881). The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31. 1989.

No significant hazards censideratian cammena raceivedr No.

Local Public Document Room location: Russell Library, 123 Broad Street. Middletown, Connecticut 06457.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Docket No. 5&447. Indian Point Nuc)ear Generating Unit No. 4 Westchester County, New York Dale ofapplicatian foramendment:

September 30, 2988. as supplemented December 30. 1968, January 20. 1989, February 7. 1989. March 3, 2989. and April14, 1989.

Briefdescription ofamendment This amendment revises the Indian Point Unit 2 Technical Speclfications to allow a fuel design transition to Westinghouse 15x15 Optimized Fuel Assemblies fuel Date ofissuancru May 18, 1980 Effeclive dqte: May 18. 1989 Amendment¹ 140 Facility Operating License No. DPR-28; Amendment revised the Technical Speciffcations.

Date ofinitiatnoticein Federal Register. February 8. 1988 (54 PR 8187).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 18, 1988 No sr'gnifican!hazards consideration comments received: No Local Public Document Room iocotion: White Plains Public Library.

100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York 10810.

NRC Praject Dr'rector. Robert A.

Capra Consumers Power Company, Docket No.

50-255, Palisades Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Date ofapplication for amendment:

November 21. 1985 Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment revises the TSs to require specific alternate shutdown system equipment and instrumentation to be opera b)e whenever the reactor coolant temperature Is at or above 325' and imposes periodic surveillance requirements to demonstrate operability of the system. The changes add Speciffca ttoa 3.25. Including Table 3.25.1 and Specification 42Q. Including Table 4.20.1. Other requests related to the emergency lighting facility are denied.

Date ofissuance: May 19. 1989 Effective dote: May 19. IM9 Amendment Nar 122 Provisional Operating License No.

DPR.20. The amendment Fevises the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal Register. April19, 1980 (54 FR 15828).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained In a Safety Evaluation dated May 19. 1989.

No sigaificanl hazords considera tiori comments receivedi No.

Loca/Public Document Room iocotiom Van Zoeren Librar. Hope College. Holland. Michigan 49423.

Consumers Power Company, Docket No.

50455, Palisades Plant, Van Bursa County, Michigan Dale ofapplication for amendment:

March 10. 1987 Briefdescriptiori ofamendment. This amendment revises the Technical Specifications to clarify the sampling requirements for service water discharge, deletes the surveillance requirement for testing the HI Range Nable Gase Monitar high alarm annunciator, and makes editorial corrections to the Radiological Effluent Technical Speciffcations implemented by Amendment No. 85 to the Provisional Operating License.

Date ofissuance: May 30, 29ry9 Effective date: May 30, 1989 Amendment No.r 123 Pravisional Operatirrg License No.

DPR-20. The amendment revises the Technical Specificatfons.

Date ofilritiolnotice in Federal Register. April19. 1989 (54 FR 15826).

The Commission'a related evaluation of the amendment Is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30. 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Van Zoeren Library, Hope College, Holland, Michigan 48423.

Consumers Power Company, Docket No.

50-255, Palisades Plant, Van Buren County. Michigan Dote ofapplicati'on foramendment:

February 25, 1967 Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment revises the Technical Specifications to account for

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No, 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 1889 / Notices modifications made to the recirculation actuation system (RAS), Those modifications altered the RAS from a two-out-of.four logic to a one-out-of-two-taken-twice logic. This amendment also includes an editorial correction related to a change previously approved by Amendment 31.

Dale ofissuance: May 31. 19N Effective dote: May 31, 1989 Amendment No.: 124 Provisional OpeIa ting License No.

DPR-20. The amendment revises the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. April8. 1987 (52 FR 11357). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31. 1989.

No significant hazards considera tion comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Van Zoeren Library. Hope College, Holland. Michigan 49423.

Consumers Power Company, Docket No, 50-255, PaUsades Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Dote ofapplication foramendment:

March 14. 1983, supplemented by letters dated May 13. 1985 and February 2, 1988.,

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment revises the Appendix A TSs relating to peridoic testing of the station batteries. The proposed changes would add specifications 4.7.2.c and 4.7.2.d.

Additionally. a change was made to the Basis to identify the purpose of the battery surveillance requirements, and a sentence was rearranged to improve clarity.

Dote ofissuonce: May 31.1989 Effective dote: May 31. 1989 Amendment ¹, 125 Provisional Operating License No.

DPR-20. The amendment revises the Technical SpeciTications.

Dote ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. August 23, 1983 (48 FR 38399).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31. 1989.

No significant hazards considerotion

'omments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Van Zoeren Library. Hope College. Holland. Michigan 49423.

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi-2, Monroe County, Michigan Dote ofapplication foramendment:

March 10, 1989 Briefdescription ofomendai ent: This amendment revises TS Section 4.3.8.2c to allow a one-time extension to the disassembly and inspection interval for the turbine overspeed protection system valves, specifically, the turbine control valves. high pressure turbine stop valves, low pressure turbine intercept valves, and low pressure turbine stop valves, until the first refueling outage.

currently scheduled to begin in September 1989. These tests would have became overdue after May 20. 19N.

Date ofissuance: May 19, 1989 Effective date: May 19, 1989 Amendment No.: 33 Facility Operating License No. NPF-

43. The amendment revises the Technical Spectflcations Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. April5, 1989 (54 FR 13763). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 19, 19N, No significant hazards consideration comments recei ved: No.

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

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No, 50-341, Fermi-2, Monroe County, Michigan Dote ofopplication foramendment:

April21. 1989 Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment revised the TSs to reflect a design modification to the Reactor Building's railroad bay air lock doers.

The modifications to the doors are a result of the licensee discovering the air supply to the inflatable seals on the doors was not safety related.

Dote ofissuonce: May 31, 1989 Effective date: May 31, 1989 Amendment No.: 34 Facility Operating License No. NPF-

43. The amendment revises the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. April28. 1989 (54 FR 18382).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 19N.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No, Local Public Document Room locotion: Monroe County Library

~

System, 3700 South Custer Road, Monroe, Michigan 46161.

Duke Power Company, et alDocket Nos. SMI3 and F14, Catawba Nuclear Station. Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina Date ofapplication foramendments:

April8, 1989, as supplemented April21, 1989.

Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments modified the Technical Specifications to identify special Rod Cluster Control Assemblies which will be inserted in the Unit 2 core prior to Cycle 3 operation.

Date ofissuance: May 23, 1989 Effective date: May 23, ISN Amendment Nos.: 64 and 58 FocilityOperating License Nos. NPF-

'5 and NPF42. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. April19, 1989 (54 FR 15827).

Because the April21, 19N, submittal clarifled certain aspects of the original request. the substance of the changes noticed in the Federal Register and the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination were not effected. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 23. 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

Duke Power Company, et aL, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 60414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 York County, South Carolina Date ofapplication for omendments:

August 29, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments modify Technical Specification Tables 4.34 and 4.3-9 by adding a footnote regarding the location of the alarm annunciators for radiation monitors EMF-57 and EMPT and correct a reference in Table 4.11.1 to EMF-58 which should be EMF-57.

Dote ofissuance: May 28, 1989 Effective dote: May 26. 1989 Amendment Nos.: 65 and 59 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. December 14, 1988 (53 FR 50325). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 28, 19N.

No sjgnificont hazords consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: York County Library. 138 East Black Street. Rock Hill,South Carolina 29730 Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-3N and 50470, McGuire Nudear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Dote ofopplication for amendments:

March 16. 1987, as supplemented April 24, 1987 Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments changed the Technical Specifications (TS) regarding functional testing of fuses and relocated the

25384 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 123 / Wednesday, June 14. 1969 / Notices method of testing low voltage circuit breakers from the surveillanc'e requirement section to the TS Bases.

Date ofissuoncei May 25. 1989 EFjective dote: May 25. 1989 Amendment Nos.: 96 and 78 FacilityOperating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-t7: Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date oFinitial noticein Federal Register. March 8. 1989 (54 FR 9926). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 25. 1989.

No significant hozards consi deration comments received: No.

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

~ North Carolina 28223 Duquesne Light Company, Docket Nos.

50-334 and 50<22, Beaver Valley Power Station. Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Shippingport, Pennsylvania Date ofopplication for omendments:

January S. 1989 Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments revise Specification 3/

4.1.3.1 regarding movable control assemblies limiting condition for operation to: (1) permit continued operation ifone or more control rods are inoperable but trippable, and (2) make several administrative changes or corrections.

Date ofissuance: May 31. 1989 Effective dote: May 31, 1989 Amendment No, 141 for Unit 1: 17 for Unit 2.

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-

. 66 ond NPF-73. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register: February 22. 1989 (54 FR 7633).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31,1989.

No significant hazords consideration comments received: No LocolPublic Document Room locatiorc B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin Avenue. Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.

Florida Power Corporation, at al Docket No. 50-302. Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida Date o/applications for omendment:

March 31, 1983. as supplemented June

22. 1983. and December 31 ~ 1964. as superseded April25, 1988 and revised November 28. 1988.

Briefdescription ofamendment. This amendment removes Table 3.6.1.

Containment Isolation Valves. from the TS and relocates it to the FSAR.

References to Table 3.6.1 in other TS are also removed. In addition. the amendment clarifies the requirement fot stroke retest of valves following maintenance and adds surveillances which ensure that the isolation time of each power-operated valve is within its approved limits and that ail purge isolation valves are verified shut at least once every 31 days when in Modes1.2.

3. or 4.

Date ofissuance: May 22. 1989 Effective date: May 22. 1989 Amendment No.: 214 Facility Operoting License No. DPR-

72. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. December 21, 1983 (48 FR 56504), and November 30, 1988 (S3 FR 48330). The November 28. 1988 letter provided clarifying information which did not alter the staffs initial determination ofno significant hazards considerations. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 22. 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room Location: Crystal River Public Library, 668 N.W. First Avenue. Crystal River.

Florida 32629 Florida Power Corporation, et al Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Horida Date ofapplication for amendment:

June 22. 2983. as superseded April2S, 1988 and clariTied March 31, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment adds operability, action and surveillance requirements for the chlorine and sulfur dioxide toxic gas detection systems.

Date ofissuance: May 30, 1989 Effective date: May 30, 1989 Amendment Na '25 Facility Operating License No. DPR-

72. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Reghter. September 7, 1988 (S3 FR 34804). The March 31, 2989 letter provided clarifyinginformation which did not change the staffs proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30, 19&9.

No signifi'cont hazards consideration comments received: No.

Locol Public Document Room Location: Crystal River Public Library.

668 N.W. First Avenue. Crystal River.

Florida 32629 Floridst Power Corporation. et al Docket No. 5M02, Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Horida Dote ofopplicotion for omendment:

March 31. 1983, as supplemented June

22. 1983.

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment provides TS for a reactor building high radiation monitor. a reactor building wide-range pressure monitor. and a reactor building flood level monitor. These changes are made in response to NUREG4737, item II.F.1.1.

Date ofissuance: May 30. 1989 Effective dote: May 30. 1989 Amendment No, 118 Facility Operating License No. DPR-

72. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. December 21. 1983 (48 FR 54S04). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30. 2989.

No significant hozards consideration comments received: No.

LocalPublic Document Room Location: Crystal River Public I.ibrary.

688 N.W. First Avenue. Crystal River.

Horida M629 Horida Power Corporation. et aL, Docket No. QL%2, Crysta) River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Genera thig Plant, Citrus County, Horida Date ofopplication for omendment.

February 18, 1984 Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment provides additional requirements for decay heat removal redundancy in the Crystal River 3 TS.

Date ofissaance: May 31, 1989 Effective date: May 31, 1989 Amendment No.: 117 FocilityOperating License No. DPR-

72. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticeirt Federal Register. April2S, 1984 (49 FR 27859).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31. 1989.

No significant hazords consideration comments received: No.

Loca/Public Document Room Location: Crystal River Public Library, 668 N.W. First Avenue, Crystal River.

Florida 32829

Federal Regfeter / Vo), 64. No 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 1980 / Notfces Georgia Power Conipany, Oglelhorpa Power CorporaUoa, Munidpal Electric Authority of Georgtia, City of Dalton, Georgia. Docket No 5M2i. Edwin I.

Hatch Nudear Plant. Unit 1, Appling County. Georgia Dote ofopplicotion for omendment:

May 4. 1984. as emended September 12, 1984, August 19. 1967 and May 18, 1989.

Briefdescription ofomendment: The amendment modified the Technical Speciflcations to change the definition of Operable.

Dote ofissuonce: May 25. 1989 Effective dote: May 25. 1SBS Amendment No, 182 Facility Operoting License No. DPR.

57. Amendment revised the Technical SpeciTica tions.

Dote ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. October 7. 1987 (52 FR 37545).

Because the May 16, 1989 submittal clarified certain aspects of the original request, the substance of the changes noticed in the Federal Register and the proposed no significant hazards determination were not affected. The Commission'a related evaluation of the amendment is contained m a Safety Evaluation dated May 25. 1989.

No significant hosords consideration comments received: No.

Loco/ Public Document Room locotiom Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley. Georgia 31513.

GPU Nudear Corpora Uon, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Mudear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey Date ofopplicotion foromendmenL March 17, 1987 Briefdescription ofomendment: Thc amendment revises Section 3.3. Reactor Coolant, of the Appendh ATechnical Specifications regarding the requirements of Generic Letter 84-11.

Specifically, the amendment lbnits the reactor coolant leakage system to a 2 gpm increase in unidentified leakage rate within any 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months period while operating at steady state power.

Dote ofIssuonce: May 23, 1989 Effective dote: May 23, 1989 Amendment No, 133 Provisional Operoting License No.

DPR-18. Amendment revised the Technical SpecificaUons.

Dote ofiniliolnotice in Federal Register. May 20, 1987 (52 FR 18960). The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 23, 1989.

No significunt hozords considerotion comments received: No, Loco/Public Document Room

" locotion. Ocean County Library.

Reference Department, 101 Washington Street. Toms Rtver. New Jersey 08753, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docketa Noa. mmS and 50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Pleat, Units Nos. 1 and

2. Bemen County, Michigan Date ofopplicotion foromendments:

May 28, 1987 Briefdescription ofomendments: The amendments willmodify the Engineered Safeguards Features (ESF) and Storage Pool Ventilation System Technical Specifications (3/4.7.6.1 and 3/4.9.12.

respectively). The proposed amendments willupdate the licensee'a ventilation system testing standards and clarify several aspects of system operation. In addition, the amendment would also make several editorial and typographical changes.

Dote ofissuance: May lQ. 1989

~ Egectzve dote: May 19, 1989 Amendments Nos.: 124, 111 Focility Operoting Licenses No@

DPR-58 and DPR-74. Amendments revised the Technical SpeciTicaUons.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register: July 15. 1987 (52 FR 26588). The Commission's related evaluaUon of the amendments Ia contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 19, 1989.

No significant hozords considerotion comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room locotlon: Maude Preston Palenske Memorial Library, 500 Market Street, St.

Joseph. Mchigan 49085.

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Dockets Noa. SM15 and QhÃ0, Donald C Cook Nudear Plant, Units Noa 1 and 2, Berrfen County, Mfchfgaa Dote ofopplicatioriforamendments:

. January 16, 1987 and supplemented on June 25. September 28, and November 25, 1987. October 31. 1988, and January 24, March 23, and April8, 19M.

Briefdescription ofamendments:

Letters from Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee) dated September 28, 1984 and April24, 1985 for the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant.

Units 1 5 2 established Initial groundwork addressing concerns regarding diesel generator reliabilftyfn Generic Letter 84-15. In a letter dated January 18, 1987, the licensee submitted a Technical Specifications fIga) change request attempting to more dosely reflect the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) endosed In Generic Letter 84-15. Additional informaUon and improved TSa are included ia letters dated June 25, and September 28. 1987.

A letter dated November 25, 1987, requests TS changes to two apedflc portions of the original submittal concerning diesel generator fuel oif surveillance testing and the ten year diesel generator fuel oil storage tank cleaning. Additional informs Uon on tba ten year diesel generator fuel storage tank cleaning is contained in a letter dated January 24, 1989. The portions of the TSs submittal dated January 18, 1987, concerning sfmuhted load testing of the station batteries end N-train batteries were resubmitted in a letter dated April29. 1988, to ensure timely compliance with an INPO commitment and to reduce outage time and were issued as Amendment Nos. 123 aad 110 to Facility Operating License Noa. DPR-58 and DPR-74, respectively. A letter dated March 23, 1989, provides darified and corrected TS pages for the 10-year

'ank deaning and inspection portion.

The licensee provided corrected TSs covering dfesel generator surveillance testing in a letter dated April8, 1989.

Dote ofissuonce. May 31, 1989 Effective date: May 31, 1989 Amendments Nos.: 125 and 112 FocilityOperoting Licenses Nos.

DPR-58 ond DPR.74. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofiniliolnoticein Federal Register. February 26, 1987 (52 FR S857),

July 29. 1987 (52 FR 28380) aad December 30, 1987 {SZ FR 49227). The Commfssion's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31. 19N.

No signi%'cant hosords considerotion comments recei vedi No.

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

Joseph, Michigan 49085.

lowe Electri Lightand Power Company, Docket No. SMR, Duaae Araold Energy, Center, Linn County, Iowa Dote ofopplicotlon for amendment.'ctober 13, 1986 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment revised the Duane Arnold Energy Center Technical Specifics Uona to conform to the Standard Technical SpecfficaUons for Bo0fng Water Reactors and to the ASMEBoiler and Pressure Vessel Code requirements for Inservice Testfng of pumps and valves, The surveillance intervals for certain pumps and valves were nnrfsed to reflect the use of the 1980 Edition (Winter 1981 Addendum) as required 4y lo CFR sassa(g)(4)(ff),

Dote ofissuonce: June 1, 1989 Effective dote: June 1, 1989 Amendment No. 180 FocilityOpemting License No. DPR-4tfh'Amendmcat revised the Technical Specifics Uons.

Dote ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. April8, 1989 (54 FR 13988). 'Ihe

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 1989 / Notices Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 1, 1989.

No significont hazards consideration comments received: No.

Loca/Public Document Room location: Cedar Rapids Public Library, 500 First Street. S. E.. Cedar Rapids.

Iowa 52401.

Nebraska Public Power District. Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Date ofomendment request: January

27. 1989 Briefdescription ofomendment: The amendment changed the Technical Specifications to specify revised LimitingConditions for Operation and Surveillance requirements for the 250 VoltDC batteries and battery chargers.

Date ofissuance: May 24. 1989 Effective dale: May 24, 1989 Amendment No.: 130 FocilityOperoting License No. DPR-

46. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register: April19, 1989 (S4 FR 15830).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 24. 1989.

No siginificant hozards consideration comments received: No.

Locol Public Document Room location: Auburn Public Library. 118 15th Street, Auburn. Nebraska 88305 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego County. New York Date ofapplication for omendment:

January 13,1989.

Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment revises Sections 3.1.4 and 4.1.4 Core Spray System; Section 3.3.7, Containment Spray: and the associated Bases for Sections 3.1.4. 4.1 4. and 3.3.7.

fn addition. the proposed amendment provides new limitingconditions for operation for the Core Spray system in the cold shutdown and refueling conditions and with the suppression pool inoperable.

Dale ofissuance: May 16. 1989 Effective date: May18.1989 Amendment No, 105 Facility Operating License No. DPR-63r Amendment revises the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitiainoticein Federal Register. February 24, 1989 (54 FR 8030).

The Commission's,related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 16. 1989 No significant hazards consideration c:omments received: No Local Public Document Room location: Reference and Documents Department, Penfield Library. State University of New York Oswego. New York 13128.

NRC Praj ect Director. Robert A.

Capra Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et alDocket No. SM23, Millstone Nudear Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut Date ofapplicotion for amendment:

March 14. 1989 Briefdescription ofomendment: The amendment changes the Technical Specifications (TS) as follow's: (1)

TS'.3.4.2.

"Turbine Overspeed Protection."

is deleted and replaced with a reference to the requirements of the "Turbine Overspeed Protection Maintenance and Testing Program." and (2) TS 8.5.1.8, "Responsibilities," js supplemented by adding item (j) which requires that the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) provide for "Review of Unit Turbine Overspeed Protection Maintenance and Testing Program and revisions thereto." In addition. a footnote is added to the applicability for TS 3.3.4 to state that the Turbine Overspeed Protection System need not be opertible "... in MODE 2 and 3 with all main steam line isolation valves and associated bypass valves in the closed position and all other steam flowpaths to the turbine isolated."

Date ofissuance: May 23, 19N Effective date: May 23. 1989 Amendment No,'4 Facility Operating License No. NPF-

49. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticeirt Federal Register. April19. 1989 (54 FR 15832),

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment fs contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 23, 19N.

No significant hazards consideration comments recei vedi No.

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

Northeast Nudear Energy Company, et al Docket No, SOS, Millstone Nudear Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut Dote ofapplicotion foromendment:

March 10, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment changes Facility Operating License No. NPF<9. Paragraph 1.A., to delete the City ofBurlington. Yern:ont.

as a licensee for Millstone Unit 3.

Dote ofissuance: May 2S, 1989 Effective dote: May 25. 1989 Amendment No.: 35 Facility Operating License No. NPF-4R Amendment revised paragraph 1.A of the Facility Operating License.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. April19. 1989 (54 FR 15831).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 25, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

Northern States Power Company, Dodcet No. 50-283, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota Date ofapplication for amendment:

April13, 1984 as supplemented by letters dated August 17. 1984: August 30 and November 27. 1985: February 19.

1987; June 6 and July 5. 198L Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment revises the Technical Specifications to add Limiting Conditions for Operathn and Surveillance Requirements for installed control room habitability equipment in accordance with the provisions ofTMI Action Plan Item 11I.D.3.4 (NUREG4737).

Date ofissuance: May 30. 1989 Effective date: May 30. 1989 Amendment¹, 85 Facility Operating License No. DPR-

22. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. May 23. 1984 (49 FR 21833) and September 28, 1984 (49 FR 38404). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment fs contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30. 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Minneapolis Public Library.

Technology and Science Department.

300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis.

Minnesota 55401.

Padflc Gas and Electric Company, Dodcet Nos. 50-275 and SM23, Diablo Canyon Nudear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 San Luis Obispo County, California Dote ofapplication foromendmenls:

December 19. 1988, as supplemented by letter dated March 23, 1989 (Reference LAR88-10)

Briefdescription. ofamendments: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications to add operability and surveillance requirements for the Undervoltage Trip and Shunt Trip Attachments for complfanbe with the

Federal Re@biter, f Vol. 54, "No. 118' Wednesday, Juntr'4, 19M ] Not)ees guidance contained in Generic Lelter 85-09.

Date ofissuance: May 23, 1989.

Effecti ve date: May 23. 1989.

Amendment ¹s.: 38 and 37.

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80ond DPR.82: Amendments changed the Technical Specifications.

Date ofiniu'alnoticein Federal Register: Apnl 19. 1909 (54 FR 15833).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 23. 1989.

¹ significont hozards consideration comments received: No.

LocolPublic Document Room

'location: California Polytechnic State Universily Library. Government Documents and Maps Department, San Luis Obispo, California 93407.

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-387 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Date ofopplicotion for omendment:

February 24, 1989 Briefdescription ofomendment: This amendment revised the Technical Specifications supporting modifications to eliminate the steam condensing of the residual heat removal system operation.

Dote ofissuonce: May 22, 1989 Effective date: As of the date of issuance.

to be implemented prior to startup. following the Unit 1 fourth refueling and inspection outage, expected to occur on June 2. 1989.

Amendment ¹, 91 Focility Operoting License No. NPF-M This amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. April19. 1989 (54 FR 15834) ~

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated hiay 22, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No Local Public Document Room location: Osterhout Free Library, Reference Department. 71 South Franklin St: ect. Wilkes-Barre.

Pennsylvania 18701.

Philadelphia Electric Company, Docket No. 50.35<<", Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Dote ofopplrcotinn fur omendment:

August 19. 1986 Briefdescription ofomendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications to change the reporting requirements for iodine spiking from a short term to an item to be included in the Annual Report. The amendment also eliminates the existing requirement to shut down a plant ifcoolant iodine ectivity limits are exceeded for 606 hours0.00701 days 0.168 hours 0.001 weeks 2.30583e-4 months in a 12 inonth period.

Date ofissuonce: May'19. 1889 Effective date: May 19, 19N Amendment No 20 Facility Operating License No. NPP-

39. This amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. March 12. 1967 (52 FR 7N1).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 19, 1989.

¹ signi%'cant hozards consideration comments received: Yes, however, the requests for hearing were considered by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the amendment proceeding terminated on May 5, 1988. LBP48-12, 27 NRC 495(1988)

~ off'd. ALAB-897,28 NRC 33(1988).

LocolPublic Document Room location: Pot tstown Public Library, 500 High Street. Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.

Philadelphia Electric Company, Docket No. 50-352, Limerick Generating Station.

Unit 1, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Date ofapplicotion foramendment:

January 23, 1989 Briefdescription ofomendment: The amendment revises the Technical Specifications to permit use of filters with an increased pore size when periodically testing the amount of particulate contamination in the diesel generator fuel oil.

Date ofissuonce: May 31, 1989 Effective date: May 31, 1989 Amendment No,'1 Focility Operoting License No. NPF-

39. This amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. February 22. 1989 (54 FR 7641).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 19N.

No significant hozords consideration comments received: No Loco/ Public Document Boom location: Pot tst own Public Library, 600 High Street, Pottstown. Pennsylvania 19464.

Philadelphia Electric Company, Public Service Electric and Gas Company Delmarva Power and Light Comipan, and Atlantic City Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos.

2 and 3, York County, Pennsylvania Dote ofapplicotion foromendmentst October 17. 1986 Briefdescription ofomendments:

These amendments revised the Environmental Technical Specifications and Bases contaiissd ia Appendix B lo the Operating Licenses Nos. DPRM and DPR-66 to refiect the issuance by the Conunonwea)th of Pennsylvania of National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systein (NPDES) Permit PA-0009733 on Septeinber 27, 1985.

Date ofissuance: May 3L 1989 Effective dote: May 31, 19N Amendments Nos, 146 and 148 Focility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 cnd DPR-88, Amendn:ents revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. April27. 1989 (54 FR 16179).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendmenls is contained in the Commissian's letter dated May 31, 19N.

No significant hozords consideration comments recei ved: No.

Local Public Document Room locotion: Government Publications Section. State Ubrary of Pennsylvania.

Education Building. Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126.

Portland General Electric Company, Docket No. 5M44, Trojan Nuc)ear Plant, Columbia County, Oregon Do!e ofopplicotion foromendment:

September 30. )986, as supplemented November 16, 1987 and April14. 1988 Briefdescription ofomendment: The amendment revises Technical Specifications 3/4.3.3.6 and 3/4.7.6.1, "Chlorine Detection Systems," and "Control Room Emergency Ventilation System," respectively. concerning control room habiability.

Dote ofissuonce: May 15, 1989 Effective date: hfay 15, 1989 Amendment No.: 152 Facilities Operating License No. NPF-fn Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. May 8. 1987 (52 FR 16951). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 15. 1989.

No Significant hozords consideration comments recieved: No.

Loco/ Public Document Boom locotion: Portland State University Library. 731 S. W. Harrison St., Portland Oregon 97207 NRC Prof ect Director. George W.

Knighton Portland General Electric Company et alDocket No. SM44. Trojan Nuclear Plant, Columbia County, Oregon Date ofomeiidment request:

November 20. 1987, as supplemented May 27 and August 12, l98L Description ofamendment request:

The amendment permits the use of

Federaf Register / Vol. 54, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 1989 / Notices upgraded fuel assemblies which incorporate features of Westinghouse Vantage S fuel assemblies, and allows extended fuel brunup and higher nuclear peaking factors.

Dote of issuance: May 24. 1989 Effective dote: May 24. 1989 Amendment No.i 153 Facilities Operating License No. NPF-ti Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. February 24. 1988 (53 FR 5495).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 24, 1989.

No significant hazards considenition comments received: No.

Lbcol Public Document Room location: Portland State University Library. 731 S.W. Harrison Street.

Portland, Oregon 97207.

NRC Project Direclari George W Knighton Power Authority of the State of New York, Docket No. 5M33, James A.

FitzPatrick Nudear Power Plant.

Oswego County, New York Date ofopplicatian foramendment:

May 16, 1989 Briefdescnption ofamendment: The amendment reduces the allowable outage times for the Main Control Room Emergency Ventilation System to 14 days with one filtertrain inoperable and three days with both trains inoperable.

Date ofissuance: May 31. 1989 Effective date: May 31, 1989 Amendment No.i129 Facility Operating License Na. DPR-59: Amendment revised the Technical Specification.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. April27. 1989 (54 FR 18182).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 1989.

No significant hazards considenition comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room lacotiani Peniield Library. State University College of Oswego. Oswego, New York.

NRC Project Director. Robert A.

Capra Power Authority of the State of New York, Docket No. SM33, James A.

FttzPatrick Nudear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York Dale ofopplication foramendment:

December B, 1984. as supplemented and superseded (in part) by letters dated October 18. 198S and October 20. 1986.

Brief'description ofamendment: The amendment incorporates changes in response to the acceptance criteria and guidance of Generic Letters 8342 and 83-36, "NUREG4737 Technical Specilications." The following items are addressed b'y this amendments: Limit Overtime (I.A.1.3):Radiation Signal on Purge Valves (II.E.4.2.7) ~ RCIC Restart and RCIC Suction (1I.K.3.13 and II.K.3.22). Penetrations (IIX4.1). Report Safety and Relief Valve Failures and Challenges (II.K,3.3), Post Accident Sampling (II.8.3), Noble Gas Effluent Monitors (II.F.1.1). Sampling and Analysis of Plant Efiluents (ILF.1.2).

Containment High-Range Monitor (II.F.1.3), Containment Pressure Monitor (II.F.1.4), Containment Water Level Monitor (ILF.1.5), and Containment Hydrogen Monitor (II.F.1.B).

Date ofissuance: May 31. 1989 Effective date: May 31, 1989 Amendment Na,'130 Facility Operating License No. DPR-59i Amendment revised the Technical Specification.

Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. November 19, 1987 (51 FR 41886). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31. 1989.

No significant hazards considenition comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Penfield Library, State University College of Oswego, Oswego, New York.

NRC Project Dlrecton Robert A.

Capra Power Authorityof the State of New York, Docket No. 5M33, james A, Fitzpatrick Nudear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York Dote ofopplication foramendment:

April10, 1986 and supplemented August 5, 1988 Briefdescription ofomendment: The amendment deletes the requirement to disconnect an emergency bus from its normal power source and connect it to its reserve power source when the associated Emergency Diesel Generator system is inoperable.

Date ofissuance: June 1, 1989 Effective date: June 1, 1989 Amendment No, 131 Facility Operatthg License No. DPR-59: Amendment revised the Technical Specification.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. September 24, 1986 (51 FR-33957). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 1, 1989.

No significant hazords considenr tion comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room locntioni Penfield Library, State University College of Oswego. Oswego.

New York.

NRC Project Directon Robert A.

Capra Public Service Electric Si Gas Company, Docket Nos. 50.272 and 50-311. Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey Dote ofopplicotion for omendments:

October 17, 1985 and supplemented December 18. 1988 Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments changed the Technical Speclficatlons pertaining to the reactor trip system instrumentation and, surveillance.

Date ofissuance: May 31, 1989 Effective dale: Units 1 and 2, effective as of the date of issuance to be implemented within 30 days of the date ofissuance.

Amendment Nos,'97 and 74 Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75. These amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Dale ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. February 12. 1988 (51 FR 5277) and April27, 1989 (54 FR 28183). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31. 1989.

Na significont hazards consideration comments recei vedi No Local Public Document Room location: Salem Free Public Library. 112 West Broadway. Salem, New Jersey 08079.

Rochester Gas end Electric Corporation, Docket No. 50.244, R. E. Glnna Nudear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York Dote ofopplicatian foramendment:

February 24. 1989.

Description ofamendment request:

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

Date ofissuance: May 22, 1989 Effective date: Date of issuance.

Amendment Nai 36 Facility Operating License Na. DPR-18; Amendinent revised the Technical Specifications, Date ofinitiainoticein Federal Register. April19, 1989 (54 FR 15837).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated. May 22, 1989.

¹ sigmficont hazards consideration commettts recei vedi No.

Local Pubhc Document Roam location. Rochester Public Library. 115

r Federe)

Register / Vol. 54. No. 113 / Wednesday, June 24, 1989 / Notices South Avenue. Rochester, New York 14610.

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

October 14. 1985 as supplemented February 13,1988 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment approved use of the Babcock and Wilcox Integrated Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program, withdrew the Exemption to Appendix H of 10 CFR Part 50 granted January 10.

1983. and deleted all references to current reactor vessel material surveillance requirements.

Dole ofissuance: May 16, 1989 Effeclive date: May 16, 1989 Amendment No.: 104 FocilityOperating License No. DPR-54: Amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. October 8, 1986 (51 FR 38103).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendmerit is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 16, 1989.

No significont hozords consideration comments received: No.

Locol Public Document Room locotion: Martin Luther King Regional Library. 7340 24th Street Bypass.

Sacramento, California 95822.

Sacramento Municipal UtilityDistrict, Docket No. 5M12, Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, Sacramento County, CaBfornia Dote ofopplicotion for amendment.

October 7. 1988. as supplemented November 18, 1988, and March 27, 1989.

Briefdescription ofomendment: The amendment clarifies the operational mode applicability ofTS 3.4 and the definition of auxiliary feedwater (AFW) train. revises the surveillance requirements and frequency of verifying the AFW System flow path. and revises the surveillance requirement for AFW pump testing.

Date ofissuonce: May 23. 1989 Effective dote: May 23. 1989 Amendment No,'105 Facility Operating License No. DPR-54: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. April19. 1989 (54 FR 15837).

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

No significont hozords consideration comments recei ved: No.

Locol Public Document Room locotion: Martin Luther King Regional Library, 7340 24th Street Bypass.

Sacramento. California 95822.

Sacramento Munidpal UtilityDistrict, Docket No, SM12, Rancho Seco Nudear Generating Station, Sacramento County, California Dote ofopplication for omendment:

March 19. l985, as supplemented by letters dated June 17 and November 25.

1985 Briefdescription ofomendment: This amendment revised Technical Spectifiication 4.17. "Steam Generators,"

to provide for a more extensive inspection of steam generator tubes by defining special tube areas to complete 100% inspection where degradation is expected. Normal random sampling inspection of tubes willbe done on other areas of the steam generator. This amendment also incorporated miscellaneous changes to paragraph numbers, section titles, and phrases for consistency.

In addition, this amendment revised the reporting requirements for the inspection results to make the reporting requirements consistent with 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2) and extended the deadline for reports on tube plugging to 30 days followingeach inservice inspection.

Date ofissuance: May 23, 1989 Effective dote: May 23, 1989 Amendment No,'106 Foci%'ty Operating License No. DPR-54t Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. June 18. 1988 (51 FR 22242). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 23. 2989.

No significont hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Martin Luther King Regional Library, 7340 24th Street Bypass, Sacramento, California 95822.

South Carolina Eectric 8~ Gas Company, South Carolina PubBc Service Authority, Docket No. SMSS, VirgilC. Summer Nudear Station, Unit No. 1, Fairfield County, South Caroline Dote ofopplication foromendment:

June 10, 1985, as supplemented December 8, 1985 and May 16. July 24, July 28, and November 18, 1988 and April5. 1989.

Briefdescription ofomendment: The amendment to VirgilC. Summer Nuclear Station Technical Specifications (TS) would reduce the number and severity of starts of the emergency diesel generators. thereby decreasing engine wear and increasing reliability, and restructures the action and surveillance statements for darity and usability.

Date ofissuance: May 30. 1989 Effective dote: May 30. 1989 Amendment No.: 77 FocililyOperating License No. NPF-

12. Amendment revises the Technical Spedfications.

Dote ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. July 17. 1985 (50 FR 29018). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No Locol Public Document Room location: Fairfield County Library.

Garden and Washington Streets, Winnsboro. South Caroline 29180.

Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. SM61 and 5M82, San Onofre Nudear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, California Date ofopplicolion foramendments:

August 26, 1988, as supplemented November 21. 1988 and February 1, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments add license conditions which require Implementation of an integrated implementation schedule program p)an for scheduling afi capital modifications.

Dote ofissuonce: May 15, 1989 Effective dale: May 15, 1989 Amendment Nos, 72 and 80 Faci%'ty Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15t Amend ments changed the licenses.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. April22, 1987 (52 FR 13349) ~

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 15, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments recei vedi No.

LocolPublic Document Room location: General Library. University of California, P,O. Box 19557, Irvine, California 92713.

Southern CaBfomia Edison Company, et aL, Docket Nos. SM62 and SM82, San Onofre Nudear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, CaBfornia Dote ofapplication foramendments:

April26, October 11 and October 24.

)988, as supplemented March 20, l989.

Briefdescription ofomendments: The amendments revise the following Technical Specifications to increase the interval for the 18 month surveillance tests to at least once per refueling Interval. which Is defined as 24 months:

3/4.2.22, "Boration Systems. How Pathsperating,"

3/4.1.3.4, "CEA Drop Time." 3/4.S.1, "Safety Injection Tanks."

3/4.5.2, "ECCS Subsystems -T,

Fedesel Reiter / VoL 54, No. 113 / Netbuechy.

Juas 14, IQSO / Notices Greater Than or Equal to 350 F." 3/

4.8,2.1,."Containment Spray System." 3/

4.6.2.3. "Containment Cooling System."

3/4.6.3. "Containment Isolation Valves."

and 3/4.6.4.2. "Electric Hydrogen Recombiners."

- Date ofissuance: May 31. 1989 Effective date: May 31. 1989 Amendment ¹s.: 73. 61 Facility Operoting License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF.IS: Amendments changed the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. March 8. 1989 (54 FR 9929-'30 and 54 FR 9932-33) and March 22, 1989 (54'FR 11842). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 1989 No significant hazards consi deration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: General Library. University of California, P.O. Box 19557, Irvine.

California 92713.

Tennessee Valley Authority. Dockets Nos. 50-529. 50-280 and 50-296. Browne Ferry Nuclear Plant. Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama Briefdescription ofamendments: The

~ proposed change adds requirements 1.0.MM.B per guidance of Generic Letter 8841.

Date ofissuance: May 19. 1969 Effective date: May 19. 1989 Amendments Nos.; 166, 165. 137 Foci%'ty Operating Licenses Nos.

DPR-33. DPR4'2 and DPR~

Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. February 1. 1989 (54 FR 5175).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated: May 19. 1989 No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Athens Public Library, South Street. Athens, Alabama 35611.

Tennessee Valley Authority. Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-280 and 56-296. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama Dote ofapplicotion foramendments:

October 24. 1988 as supplemented by letter dated March 24. 1989. (TS ~~)

Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments change the expiration date for the Browne Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Operating Licenses DPR-33 (Unit

1) from May 10. 2007 to December 20, 2013. for BFN Operating License DPR-5?

(Unit 2) from May 10, 2007 to June 28, 2014. and for BFN Opera ting License DPR.68 (Unit 3) from July 31. 2008 to July

2. 2016. The supplemental information supplied in the March 24, 1989 letter did not change the. substance af the Notice of Consideration ofan amendment issued in the Federal Register on 1VA's application for extension of operating license dates.

Dote ofissuance: May 19, 2989 Effective date: May 19, 1989 Amendments Nos.: 187. 186. 138 FocilityOperating Licenses Nos.

DPR-33. DPR-SZ and DPR4k Amendments revised the license for each facility.

Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. January 11, 1989 (54 FR 10?A).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 19, 1989.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Athens Public Library. South Street, Athens, Alabama 35611.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 6M'nd 5M', Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 snd? Hamilton County, Tennessee Date ofopplication foramendments:

January 25, 1984 (TS,52)

Briefdescription ofamendments:

These amendments modify Section 3/

4.4. Reactor Coolant System. of tha Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Speciflcations (TS). The changes add limitingconditions for operation (LCO), action statements ifthe LCO is not met and surveillance requirements for the reactor coolant system vents (RCSV). These are TS 3/

4.4.22. A section on the RCSV ls also being added to the Bases of tha TS.

The proposed changes on the RCSV paths in TVA's application dated December 9. 1985 duplicated the changes in its application dated January 25, 1984. This latter application also included proposed TS changes for the followingTMIAction Plan monitors:

high range noble gas effluent monitors.

containment area high range radiation monitors. containment pressure monitor and the instrumentation for detection of inadequate core cooling. These are TMI Action Plan items ILF.1.1, ILF;1.3, ILF.1.4 and II.F.2 respectively. Also included were proposed changes to the requirements for diesel generator testing to meet the NRC Generic Letter 8340 dated July 2$. 1983.

For the high range noble gas effluent monitors and containment area radiation monitors, the staff approved changes to tha TS in its letter dated

.April28 2989. For the containmont pressure monitor and the instrumentatlon for detection of inadequate core cooling. the staff approved changes to the TS in its letter dated September 16,.1986. For the diesel generator testing requirements. the staff approved. changes to tLe'IS in its letter dated October 28, 2986.

The amendments described above complete the staff's review ofTVA application dated Jaauary 25, 1984.

Date ofissuance.

June 1. 1989 Effective date: June 1, 1989 Amendment ¹s.: 116. 106 Facility Operating Licenses Nos.

DPR-77 and DPR-7R Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date of(rtitialnoticein Federal Register. September 28, 1984 (49 FR 38410). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 1, 2989.

No significant hazards consideration comments recei ved: No.

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

Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Electric Illundnstfng Company, Docket No. 50-346, Davts-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio Date ofapplication foramendment:

August 6, 1987 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment deleted in its entirety the Appendix B "Environmental Technical Specifications" and those portions of License Conditions 2.C.(2) and 2.F.(1) which referred to the Environmental Technical Specifications.

Date ofissuance: May 28. 1989 Effective date: May 18, 1989 Amendment No.: 133 Facility Opera tirgLicense No. NPFQ.

Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. April19, 1989 (54 FR 15839).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained kt a Safety Evaluation dated May 18. 2989.

No significant hazards consideration comments recei vadt No.

Local Public Document Room location: University ofToledo Library.

Documents Department. 2801 Bancroft Avenue, Toledo. Ohio43606, Union Electric Company. Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 2, Callaway County, Mssouri Date ofopplication foramendment:

September 18, 2985 as supplemented by letters dated March 23 and May 9. 1989.

Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment revised Section 3/4.8 1.6.

Containment Vessel Structural Integrity, of the Callaway Technical

Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 1989 / Notices 8%81 Specifications. The amendment provided both clarification and relaxation of some of the existing Surveillance Requirements as well as adding provisions which the staff found vital for monitoring the integrity of prestressed concrete containments. In addition. modifications were made to some of the reporting requirements and action statements found within the LimitingCondition for Operation.

Dote ofissuonce: May 24. 1989 Effective dote: May 24, 1989 Amendment No.: 48

, Facility Operating License No. NPF-

30. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. December 4. 1985 (50 FR 49794). The March 23 and May 9. 1989 submittals provided additional clarifying information and did not change the proposed finding of the initial notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 24, 1989.

No significont hozards consideration comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room locotion: Callaway County Public Library, 710 Court Street. Fulton.

Missouri 65251 and the John M. Olin Library, Washington University. Skinker and Lindell Boulevards, St. Louis.

Missouri 63130.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County. Virginia.

Date ofopplicotion for omendmenls:

March 30, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendments:

These amendments change TS Section 6.5.B.7. "Station Operating Records" by clarifying the requirement to retain photographs of scope traces of welds which are tested by ultrasonic examination and photographs of surface welds inspected by a visual or surface examination for the life of the plant.

Dote ofissuance: May 18. 1989 Effective date: May 18, 1989 Amendment Nos.:127 and 127 Facility Operoting License Nos. DPR-32 ond DPR-37: Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofiniliolnoticein Federal Register. May 18. 1988 (53 FR 17796). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 18, 1989.

No significont hozords considerotion comments recei ved: No.

LocolPublic Document Room locotiun: Swem Library, College of William and Mary. Williamsburg.

Virginia 23185 VIrghiia Electric and Power Company,

'ocket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station. Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia.

Date ofopplication foramendments:

February 14, 1979. as supplemented September 21. 1982, August 30, 1985.

April11, 1988 and May 12. 1989.

Briefdescription ofamendments:

'These amendments remove obsolete inservice inspection and testing requirements and replaces them with'ore up-to-date NRC-approved requirements specified in 10 CFR 50.SSa(g),

Dote ofissuonce: May 24. 1989 Effecti ve dote: May 24, 1989 Amendment Nos.: 128 and 128 Foci%ty Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. August 23. 1983 (48 FR 38428) and October 23. 1985 (50 FR 43036).

The April11, 1988 and May 12, 1989 letters provided supplemental information which did not alter the staffs initial determination of no significant hazards considerations. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 24, 1989.

No significont hazards consideration comments received: No.

Loco/Public Document Room location: Swem Library. College of Williamand Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Surry County, Virginia.

Date ofapplicotion foramendments:

March 20, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendments:

These amendments change Technical Specification Sections 3.14 and 323 by imposing additional system operating restrictions on the Main Control Room and Emergency Switchgear Room Air Conditioning System.

Dale ofissuance: May 30, 1989 Effective dole: May 30. 1989 Amendment Nos. 129 and 129 Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 ond DPRD7t Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. April5, 1989 (54 FR 13770). '11ie Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30. 198L No significant hazords consi derotion comments recei ved: No.

Local Public Document Room location: Swam Library, College of William and Mary. Willlamsbuig, Virginia 23185 Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Docket No. SMOS, Kewaunee Nuclear

'Power Plant, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin Date ofopplication for omendment.

May 23, 1986 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment changed the expiration date of the license from August 6, 2008 to December 21. 2013.

Dote ofissuonce: May 26, 1989 Effective date: May 26, 1989 Amendment No.: 82 Focility Operating License No. NPF-

43. Amendment revised the License.

Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. April25. 1989 (54 FR 17849).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 26, 1989 and the environmental assessment dated May 11, 1989 (54 FR 21510)

~

No significant hozards considerotion comments received: No.

Loco/ Public Document Room location: University of Wisconsin Library Learning Center. 2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301.

WolfCreek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas Dote ofomendment request:

December 6, 1985 and amended March 29 and May 10, 1989.

Briefdescription ofomendment: The amendment revised Section 3/4.6.1.6, Containment Vessel Structural Integrity.

of the WolfCreek Generating Station Technical Specifications. The amendment provided both clarification and relaxation of some of the existing Surveillance Requirements as well as added provisions which the staff found vital for monitoring the integrity of prestressed concrete containments. In addition. modifications were made to some of the reporting requirements and action statements found within the LimitingCondition for Operation.

Date ofissuance: May 24, 1989 Effective dote: May 24, 1989 Amendment No, 31 Facility Operating License No. NPF-

42. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Dote ofinitiolnoticein Federal Register. January 1S. 1988 (51 FR 1876).

The March 29 and May 10. 1989 submit tais 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 May A", 1989,

25392 Feder'al Register / Vol. 54. No. 113 / Wednesday.

June

14. 1989 / Notices Na significant hazards cansideratian comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room Location: Emporia State University.

William Allen White Library. 1200 Commercial Street. Emporia. Kansas 66801 and Washburn University School of Law Library. Topeka, Kansas 66621.

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND FINAL DETERMINATIONOF NO SIGNIFICANTHAZARDS 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 complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations.

The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter L 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'of Amendment and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for a Hearing. For exigent circumstances, the'ommission has either issued a Federal Reghter notice providing appartunity 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 aa 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 hes 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 before it of a request for a hearing fram any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration ls involved.

The Commission has applied the standards of10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no slgnihcant hazards consideration. The bash for this determination ls contained In the documents related to this action.

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

Unless otherwise Indicated. the Cammission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental

'mpact 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 Commhsion'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 facilityInvolverL A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U,S. Nuclear Regulatory Cammissian, 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 July 14, 19M. the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and petitians far leave to Intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's "Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. Ifa request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date. the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman af the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, willrule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board willissue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714. a petition forleave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and bow 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 sathfy the spectficity requirements described above.

Not later then fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must Include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated In the matter. and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable spectficity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which sathfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention willnot be permitted to participate as a party.

Federal Register / VoL 54, No. 223 / Wednesday, June 14, 1989 / Notices Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding. subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. 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 20S55. Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.. Washington. 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 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 giv'en Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to (Project Director): petitioner's name and telephone number; date petition was mailed: plant name: and publication

,date and page number of this Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regula tory Commission. Washington.

DC 20555, and to the attorney for the licensee.

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

supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing willnot be entertained absent a determination by the Commission. the presiding officer or the 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).

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Docket No. 50-213, Haddam Neck Plant. Middlesex County, Connecticut Date ofapplication foramendment:

March 31. 1989 as supplemented May 2S.

1989 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment revises the one-time relaxation of the containment integrity Technical Specification granted in Amendment No. 112 to allow cleaning or replacement of the containment air fan motor heat exchangers while at power.

Date ofIssuance:

June 1. 1989 Effective date: June1, 1989 Amendment Na, 117

. Focili!y Operating License Na. DPR-

'2. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Public comments requested as ta proposed no significant hazards cansiderrttiant Yes. Published in Federal Register May 12. 1989 (54 FR 20659):No comments were received.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment. finding ofemergency circumstances.

and final determination of no significant hazards consideration are contained in a Safety Evaluated dated Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Garfield.

Esquire. Day, Berry tk Howard, Counselors at Law, City Place, Hartford.

Connecticut 06103-3499.

Local Public Document Room location: Russell Library, 123 Broad Street. Middletown. Connecticut 06457.

NRCeject Dt'rector: John F. Stolz Dated at Rockviiie. Maryland, this 5th day of June. 1989.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission StevdQ A Vsfgl4

. Director. DivisionofReactar projects.l/ll.

OfficeofNuclear Reactor Rsttulatian (Doc. 89-14004 Filed 6-1~; 8:45 am)

SILUHo cooz rN041M

ML17334B336

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

Dear Mr. Congel:

SUBJECT:

Enclosures:

Navigation menu

ML17334B336

Text

SUBJECT:

Dear Mr. Congel:

SUBJECT:

Enclosures:

Navigation menu

Search