ML18033A950
| ML18033A950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1989 |
| From: | Michael Ray TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.068, RTR-REGGD-1.068 NUDOCS 8909150112 | |
| Download: ML18033A950 (31) | |
Text
.gC Cp~RATED DISTRIBUTION DEMONSTRATION SYSTEM
~
0
~,
~ +
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RXDS)
SUBJECT:
Submits list of restart hold points to be used during power ascension testing of Unit 2.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
D030D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR $ ENCL 5
SIZE: /I TITLE: TVA Facilities Routine Correspondence S
05000260 NOTES:1 Copy each to: S.Black,D.M.Crutchfield,B.D.Liaw, R.Pierson,B.Wilson ACCESSION NBR:8909150112 DOC.DATE: 89/09/08 NOTARIZED:
NO DOCKET FACIL:50-260 Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2, Tennessee 05000260 AUTH.NAME
'UTHOR'FFILIATION RAY,M.J.'Tennessee Valley Authority RECXP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME LA GEARS,G COPIES LTTR E 1
1 CL RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
INTERNAL: ACRS OC/LFMB
-E EXTERNAL: LPDR NSIC NOTES:
01 NUDOCS-ABSTRACT '
OGC/HDS2 1
NRC PDR NaZE lO ALL
~ RXDS~~ RECXPIENZS:
PLEASE HELP US K) REDUCE HASTE!
CONZACZ 'QK DQCUMEPZ CONZROL DESK, RXN Pl-37 (EXT. 20079) K) ELXHXNATR YOUR NAME PRCH DISTRIBUTION LIPIS PQR DOCUMEMZ8 YOU DQiNIT NEEDt TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 16 ENCL D
S
C
~
E(g I
~
TENNESSEE VALLEYAUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 37401 5N 157B Lookout Place SEP 08 Iae U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Document Control Desk Hashington, D.C.
20555 Gentlemen:
In the Matter of Tennessee Valley Authority Docket Nos.
50-260 BROHNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN) UNIT 2 RESTART HOLD POINTS TVA has established management hold points to be used during the power ascension testing of BFN Unit 2.
The plant manager will have the responsibility of determining when the unit should move beyond the hold point.
The following hold points are based on Regulatory Guide 1.68, "Initial Test Program for Hater Cooled Nuclear Power Plants,"
NRC Inspection Report
- 72532, "Power Level Plateau Data Review," and BFN Final Safety Analysis Report 13.10:
I I
1.
Prior to withdrawal of 'control rods for initial criti.cality after the completion of open vessel testing.
2.
Prior to increasing reactor vessel pressure above atmospheric pressure after the completion of initial criticality.
3.
Prior to placing the reactor mode switch in the run position.
4.
Prior to exceeding 25 percent power.
5.
Prior to exceeding 55 percent power.
6.
Prior to exceeding 80 percent power.
7.
Completion of Power Ascension Test Program.
If you have any questions, please telephone Patrick P. Carier,
- BFN, (205) 729-3570.
Very truly yours, 8909150ii2 890908 PDR ADOCK 05000260 P
PDC cc:
See page 2
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Manag
, Nuclear Li ensing and Regulatory Affairs P
30 An Equal Opportunity fmployer
f "r
a aP U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission cc:
Ms. S.
C. Black, Assistant Director for Projects TVA Projects Division U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Hhite Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike
. Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. B. A. Hilson, Assistant Director for Inspection Programs TVA Projects Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NH, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 NRC Resident Inspector Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Route 12, Box 637
- Athens, Alabama 35609-2000
""jAj BS
,0 A,
C.
Ek
~
~r
Vl'%li CIJ 4 JHOW CO j
4**pl
.-i s, "v'
~ ".i~
DDCleNDII;-'=4,.060s~50-296,'50-327 and 50-328 Mr. Oliver D:~Kingsley,. Jr.
Senior Vice President, Nuclear Povfer
. Tennessee Valley Authority 6N 38A. Lookout Place 1101 Market Street
'hattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI~N. '-'=."-"'-...
WASHWQTOM. D.C. 20866'
~ ~
. ~ ~.. 'Distr ibu&on Docket File August 29, 1989 BfN Rdg. File SQN Rdg. File The follovring documents
~
Dear Mr. Kingsley:
SULIECT: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY -'RGMNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANTy'UNITS, 4 2 AND 3 SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT,"'NITS, 1,AND 2
~$
our review of the subject faoTrty.are transmitted for your inforntation.a~'-'-~'-;" "
~
Notice of Receipt of Application Draft/Final Environmental Statement Notice of AvapaNity of Draft/Rnal Environmental Statement
- Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement Na.
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant tmpact Notice of issuance of Environmental Assessment Notice of Consideration of issuance of Facility Operating Ucense or Amendment to Facility Operating License Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses "2
Involvin No Si nificant Hazards Conditions See Pagels)
Exemption
& 23 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 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As Stated CCo NRRtTYA ASanders 8 l~l89
Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.
- 2 CC'eneral Counsel='ennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive ET 11B 33H Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Mr. F. L. Moreadith Vice President, Nuclear Engineering Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive MT 12A 12A Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Dr. Mark 0. Medford Vice President and Nuclear Technical Director Tennessee, Valley Authority 6N 38A Lookou't PTace'hattanooga;paTennessee.< 37404:280l,,.,
Manager,'Hut'tea%'Lfrcens'fiick t "
and Regulatory,;Afgyi.rs...
Tennessee Valley Authority 5N 157B 'Lo5kout P1'acOP""
'hattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 Nr. 0. J. Zeringue Site Director Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P. 0.
Box 2000
- Decatur, Alabama 35602 Mr. P. Carier Site Licensing Manager Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P. 0.
Box 2000
- Decatur, Alabama 35602 Nr.
G. Campbell Plant Manager Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P. 0.
Box 2000
- Decatur, Alabama 35602
- Chairman, Limestone County Coomfssion P. 0.
Box 188
- Athens, Alabama 35611 Claude Ear 1 Fox, M.D.
State Health Officer State Department of Public Health State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.M.
Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Danny Carpenter Senior Resident Inspector Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
'r U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmefssfon~-'.
Route 12, Box 637
- Athens, Alabama 35611 Dr. Henry Nyers, Science Advisor Comnfttee on Interior and Insular Affairs U.S.
House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 Tennessee Valley Authority Rockville Office 11921 Rockville Pike Suite 402 Rockvi11e, Maryland 20852 Mr. John L. LaPoint Site Director Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P. 0.
Box 2000 Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379 Nr. M. Burzynski Acting Site Licensing Manager Sequoyah Nuclear Plant P. 0.
Box 2000 Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379
Mr. Oliver O. Kingsley, Jr.
w 3 ceo County Judge',;":i~
Hamil ton County,:.Cour thouse Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 Mr. Kenneth M. Jenison Senior Resident Inspector Sequoyah Nuclear Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2600 Igou Ferry Road Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379 Mr. Michael H. Mobley, Oirector Division of Radiological Health T.E.R.R.A. Building, 6th Floor 150 9th Avenue North Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5404
~ ~
I~
c
~
"f"Notfc'es'UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Biweekty Notice Appllcatfons and Amendments to Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to Public Law (P.i ) 9y<15, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. PL. 97M5 revised section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as amend'ed (the Act),1o require.
the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, under a new provision of section 189 of the Act. This provision grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendinent involves no sIgnificant hazards consideration, notwithstanding'he pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing fr-"any person.
This biweeldy notice includes all.
notices of amendments issued. or proposed to be issued from July 81, 1989 through August 11, 1989. The last biweekly notice was published on August 9. 1989 (54 FR 32704). '
38100
~
~
v Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 1989 / Notices NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACILITYOPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDSCONSIDERATION DEI'ERMINATIONAND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences 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 ofFreedom of Information and Publications Services, Office ofAdministration 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-218, Phillips Building, 7920 NorfolkAvenue, Bethesda, Maryland from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Copies ofwritten comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street. NW.,
Washington, DC The filingofrequests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By September 22, 1989 the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facilityoperating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's "Rules of
=
~
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. Ifa request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date,'he Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will'ruleon 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 with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the followingfactors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2] the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial. or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter ofthe proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.
Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must inclu'de a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention willnot be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fullyin the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
Ifa hearing is requested. the' Commission willmake a final
'etermination on the issue ofno significant hazards consideration. The final determination willserve to decide when the hearing is held.
Ifthe final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards considers tion, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
Ifthe final determination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Normally, the Commission willnot issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period.
However. should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result. for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination willconsider all public and State comments received before action is taken. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action willoccur very infrequently.
A request for a hearing or a petition
'or 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) 325-6000 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the followingmessage addressed to (Project Director): petitioner's name and telephone number. date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to the attorney for the licensee.
Federal Register / Vol. 5,
- o. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 1989 otlces 35101 Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing willnot be entertained absent a determination by the Commission. the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing offactors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room for the particular facilityinvolved.
Boston Edison Company, Docket No, 50-293, Pilgrim Nudear Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts Dote ofamendment request; July 31, 1989 Description ofamendment request:
The proposed amendment would delete the onsite and offsite organization charts and specify general requirements in place of the deleted charts. The proposed change affects Section 6.0, "Administrative Control" of the Pilgrim Technical Specifications, The proposed change is submitted in accordance with the guidance provided in the NRC Generic Letter (GL) 6IH)6 dated March 22, 1988.
Basis forproposed no signficant 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 facfiityinvolves no significant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facility in accordance with a proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2} create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The licensee addressed the above three standards ln the amendment application. In regard to the three standards, the licensee provided the followinganalysis.
(1) Operation of the facilityIn accordance with the proposed amendment would not Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated.
The changes proposed to remove corporate and plant organtzatton charts from the Technical Spedficatlons do not Involve a slgnificant increase in the probability or consequences ofan acddent previously evaluate* As stated in NRC Generic Letter NHNLthe requirements necessaiy for safe operation of the plant have been retained in the Technical Specifications; the changes do not eliminate or alter the functions previously reviewed: and the changes do not affect plant operation aud design or create a new accident mode. The changes proposed were modeled after Enclosure 2 to NRC Generic Letter No. 6MO in conformaiice with Commission requirements.
(2) Use of the modified specification would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident than previously evaluated because the proposed change Is administrative In nature and nn physical alterations ofplant configuration or changes to setpotnts or operating parameters are proposed.
(3) Use of the modified specification would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed amendment does noi involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because Boston Edison, through its quality assurance programs, iis commitment to maintain only qualified personnel Iu positions ofresponsibility, and other required controls, assures that safety functions willbe performed at a Iiighlevel ofcompetence.
Therefore, removal of'the organization charts from the Technical Specifications willnot affect the margin ofsafety.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination analysis. Based upon this review, the staff agrees with the licensee's analysis. Therefore, based on its review, the staff proposes to determine that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
LocalPublic Document Room location: Plymouth Public Library,'11 North Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 Attorneyforlicensee: W.S. Stowe, Esq., Boston Edison Company, 800 Boylston Street, 36th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02199 NRCProject Director Richard H.
Wessman Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Docket Nos. 50403 and 50-247, Indian Point Nudear Generating Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Westchester County, New York Date ofamendments request: July 25, 1989 Description ofamendments request:
The proposed amendments would revise the "Indian Point Station Units 1 and 2 Physical Security Plan" to (1) redefine several vital areas ofIndian Point 2 as Type I rather than Type IIand vice versa, (2) make several changes for darification and standardization of terminology, (3) remove several items from the list ofvital equipment but not actually remove the equipment from vital areas, and (4) remove the City Water Tank from the list of vital equipment and delete its vital area.
Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
The licensee provided the following analysis of the proposed changes:
The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards fordetermining whether "significant hazards conslderattoiis" exist by providing certain examples at 51 FR 7744 (March 6. 1966).
Example (i) of 51 FR 7744 which applies to editorial changes, states:
"(I) a purely administrative change io technical specifications: for example. a change Io achieve consistency throughout the technical specifications. correction of an error, or a change in rtomenciature."
Although the example cited In 51 FR 7744 refers specifically to proposed change to technical specifications. it is understood that the intent of the guidance is that it apply io license amendment changes, in general, including Physical Security Plan changes such as proposed herein. With the exception of the proposed change to delete the City Water Tank from Table 3.2, the chenges to the Physical Security Plan proposed in this application are shown not to involve a significant hazards consideratloii by reason of the guidance in example (I) above since they amount Io merely admtnistratlve changes such that there are no functional alternatives being made. Note that the level of security afforded Type I and Type Iivita) cress at Indian Point is Identical and this policy willnot change without another amendment request. Likewise. the deletion of Items, other than the City Water Tank from the list ofvital equipment willnot alter their physical location withinvital areas.
Concerning the remaining proposed change. the Commission has provided standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c) for determining whether a significant hezards consideration exists. A proposed amendment to en operating license for e facilityinvolves no significant hazards constderations If operation of the facilityIn accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a sigiitficant Increase In the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) creete 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 amendments have been evaluated below and determined not-to involve a Significant Hazards Coiislderation.
(1) Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The City Water Tank is utilized for normal plant operation and may be used as a backup to safety equipment cooling. Iis damage or destruction would not cause or increase the pmbability or consequences of an accident since safety-related vital equipment would not be affected by such
Forget@ Regbrter / Vo o4, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, %989 / Not@as sabotage snd wouhL therefere, remain
, operable. Therefore, since sabotage in e non-vital area can be assumed to be successful but safety-related equipment in vital areas Is assumed to operate as required. the deletion of this item from the list ofvital equipment would not involve a stgcuficant Increase in the probability or consequcmces ofan
~
accident previously evaluated.
(2) Do the proposed changes create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from any acddent previously
'valuated?
No. Deletion of this item from the vital equipment list implies that we must assume its Inopersbgity In the even! ofsuccessful sabotage. Such Iiioperablllty. caused by damege or destruction, would be serious
'nough to cause reactor shutdown as required by Techiiical Spedfications but would not result In any previously unanalyzed acddent. Overall plant design Is such that adequate safety-related equipmeut aud cooling to that equipment exists to bring the plant to a safe shutdown and assure ihet escalation ofan accident beyond the damage to thts uou-vital piece ofequipmeut would not~. Soccessfni sabotage ofthe item deleted from the list ofvitel equipment with this proposed revieion would. therefore. not create Ihe possibility of a new or differecit kind ofecddsnt from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) Do the proposed changes involve s significaut redaction in the msrgfu of safety?
No. Deletion of this Item from the vitel equipment list aad its subsequent Inoperability or destructiou due to successful sabotage could yield a forced plant shutdown as required by Technical Spedficstfons. The other consequences of such sabotage wocdd be the elimination ofcertain backup systems which are uot required or rdied upon for accident prevention or mttigattou purposes.
This effect would not be a siguificant one since the functionally equtvalent safety-related vital"equipment wouM not be adversely atfectscL Therefore, the overall margin of safety wouldnot be siguificantly reduced.
The staff agrees with the licensee's analysis. Therefore, based on the above, the staff proposes that the proposed amendment willnot involve a
'ignificant Hazards Consideration.
Local Public Document Boom location: White Plains PubBc Library, 100 MartiiieAvenue, White Plains, New York, 10610.
Attorneyforlicensee: Brent I Brandenburg. Esq4 IrvingP)ace, New
~ York New York,10003 NBCeject Director: Robert A, Capra Duquesne L(ghi;Company, Docket No,
'M12, Beaver VaQsy Power Station, Unit No. 2, Shippingport, Pennsylvania Date ofamendment mgnesh'u)y 27, 1989 Description ofamendment raciest:
The p'roposed amendment would revfse Section 4.1.12 oftha Tee)utica)
Spec(Qcatiocis to sehix the, swveiHance frequency offafted snubbera resulting from isolated damage events that cannot be related generically to other snubbers.
Specifically, the proposed changes wou)d eliminate the requirement to reduce the surveiHance intervals for cases that result from isolated damage.
In addition, another change would permit either satisfactory functional test result, or applied remedy be the basis to dec)are snubbers as operable for the purpose of establishing the next inspection interval. Both these changes have been implemented in the Unit 1 Technical Spedfications.
Basis forproposed no significant hazards considerotion determinationr The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists in accotc)ance withICFR 50.92(c), h proposed amendment to an opercitfng license for a fadlityinvolves no significant hazard consideration if operation o'f the facQ(ty in accordance.
with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probabi)ity or consequences of an
~
accident previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility ofa nevv or different kind oficddent from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) fnvolve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.
The proposed changes do not hivolve any changes to gant hardware or operating procedures. Allsnubbera and related components willcontinue to be visually and functionally Inspected In accordance with the current specificathns, and hence the overall operab(IIty of the snubbere are not affected. Thus the answers to the first 2 criteria are negative. None of the previous safety anelysee'are affected.
and no safety essuntptions need to be changed. Thus the answer to criterion (3) is also negative. The staff therefore proposes to determine that the requested amendment involves no significant hazards considerations.
LocalPublic Docmnent Boom location: B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 FranMin Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 1500I.
AttorneyforIfcensea Gerald Charnoff, Esquire, Jay F SIIberg, Esquire. Shaw, Pittman. Potts Ik Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Project Director; John F. Stolz, Horida Power and LightCocnIuiny, et al Docket Nos. M@35 and SM88, St. Lice(a Plant, Un)t Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucio County, FIodda Dote ofcrnicmdnrent requesEa.. July 26,
'1989 Descrjptlau ofcnncnnt)nant napnests:
~
These psopoaac) amertdtnente would revise Technical Spedffcetfons Sections 3.7 for'both units to clarify testing requirements for the main feedwater line isolation valves and the main steam lin'e isolation valves (MSIVs).
Basis forproposed no significant hazards conslderntt'on 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~ace(dent previously evaluated: or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any acddent previously evaluated; or (3) involve e significant redaction ln a margin of safety.
The licensee provided the following discussion regarding the above three criteria:
Criteriou 1 Operation ofthe fadlityin accordance with the proposed emsndmcmt would not involve a siyuTicant increase iu tbe probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaIuated.
The bases forTechnical Spectficattons 3.7.1.S forUnits 1 and 2 and Technical SpeciTication 3.7.1.S forUnit 2, state that the main steam Isolation valves and mstn feedwater Isolation valves are maintained in the closed posinoci to engine that the consequences ofsn excess steam demand event are IimitecLWith ibe main steem )Inc Isolation valves end tbe main feedwster )Inc Isolation valves maintained dosed the fundional desqpi bases under acddcut
'onditioni are met by prohibtthig the blowdown ofboth steam generators and ensuring that aH main feedw ster flowIs stopped. Theref'ere, the potential for excessive cobldown ofthe reactor coolant system, aud the accompanying cetera to power from subcrtncel conditions. ere reduce'd.by the proposed license smendmsut.
. Addhg the statement regarding the Inapplicability ef Technical Spedficanou 3.0A to the Unit 1 MSIVspecificatiou Is administrative in nature, and brings the Unit 1 specification Into agreement with the Combustion Engineering (CE) Standard
'Technical Spedfications. Chsiigtng modes
.with the MRVs dosed does not hivotve eny increase Iu acddecit probaMIty or coiisequeuces because these valves will i
~
already be in their required scddent position.
Criterion 2 Use of the mocsted spedttcsttan would not create the possibility of a asw or different kind ofscddens Rom auy scddent previously evaluated.
Msiatstahig the meki steam Isotathn valves aud meta teedwetet Isolenon valves closed 4n Medea 2 threagh 4 doss net create a new or differscrt Idn4ofaccident fnxir'eny
Federal. Register / Vol. 54, No, 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 196 I Notices 35103 the main steam lines when the main steam line isnlatlon valves are closed Is prevented by the safety valves on the mein steam lines.
The availability of feedwater to the steam generators Is ensured by the operabigty requirements for the auxiliary feedwater system.
AllowingUnit 1 to change modes while both mein steam line isolation valves are closed is in accordance with the CE Standard Technical Specifications, end willnot create the potential for a new or different kind of accident or event.
Criterion 3 Use of the modified specification would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
By maintaining the main steam line and main feedwater isolation valves In a closed position, the potential consequences of a steam IIne break event are minimized, and the margins of safety provided in the accident analyses of record are increased.
Based upon the above, we have determined that the amendment request does not (1) involve a significant increase In the probability or consequences or an accident previously evaluated. (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. or (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. and therefore does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis. Accordingly, the Commission propose<to determine that the proposed changes to the TS involve no significant hazards considerations.
Local Public Document Room location: Indian River Junior College Library, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Horida 33450 Attorneyforlicensee: Harold F. Reis, Esquire, Newman and Holtzinger, 1615 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20038 NRC Project Director: Herbert N.
Berkow Florida Power and Light Company, et al.,
Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucte Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, F)orida Date ofamendment request: July 26, 1989 Description ofomendment request:
This amendment revises Action f. of Technical Specification 3.8.1.1. to make it consistent with the Emergency Diesel Generator testing action requirements.
. Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves 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 provided the following discussion regarding the above three criteria:
Criterion t Operation of the facilityin accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve e significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated.
The probability of an accident previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) has not been affected as the proposed change ie administrative irrnature, end Is intended to, restore consistency in testing requirements for the emergenqr, diesel generators when one offsite power source lirfrieperable. No parameters which affect the probabilities of occurrence of any accident are affected by this change.
The consequences of an eccident previously evaluated in the UFSAR have not been increased as the proposed surveillance requirements willnot adversely affect the operation or operability of the diesels or any other safety related equipment.
The probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety has not changed sbice reducing the test frequency of the diesel generators and modifying the starting requirements to be consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations are intended to enhance diesel reliabilityby minimizing severe test conditions which can lead to premature failures.
Crilerion 2 Use of the modified specification would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change is administrative in
'ature and is intended to restore consistency between ACTIONstatements relative to the starting of emergency diesel generators when one offsite power source Is inoperable. The net effect of this change Is to reduce the diesel generator testing frequency and starting requirements such that there is still a high degree of assurance that they would operate, ifcalled upon. when one offsite circuit is inoperable, and has no impact on actual accident analysis.
The possibility of a malfunction of equipment Important to safety of a different type than any analyzed in the UFSAR has not been increased in that the proposed license amendment incorporates the starting erxl testing requirements recommended by Generic Letter 34-15. The intent of the change is to enhance the reliabilityof the emergency diesel generators by adherence to manufacturer recommendations regarding engine prelube and warmup.
Criterion 3 Use of the modified specification would not involve a signlficent reduction In a margin of safety.
The proposed change restores consistency between action statements in St. Lucie Unit 2 Technical Specification 3/4.8.1.1. reducing the frequency of diesel engine starts end diesel engine fast, cold starts while providing a high degree of assurance that they would operate, ifcalled upon. when one offsiie power circuit is Inoperable. The reduction of diesel generator testing frequency should increase the reliabilityof the diesel generators because the diesel engines willbe properly conditioned before siartup and the number of starts decreased io reduce wear.
Based upon the above, we have determined that the amendment request does not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences or an accident previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin ol safety. and therefore does not involve e significant hazards consideration.
'he staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed changes to the TS involve no significant hazards considerations.
Local Public Document Room l4 location: Indian River Junior College Library, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Attorneyforiicensee: Harold F. Reis, Esquire, Newman and Holtzinger. 1615 f Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036 NRC Project Director: Herbert N.
Berkow Gulf States Utilities Company, Docket No. 5M58, River Bend Station, Unit 1 West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana Date ofamendment request: June 28.
1989 Description ofamendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise License Condition 2.C(14), Emergency Response Capabilities, Attachment 5, Item 3. Item 3 of Attachment 5 to the license specifies the schedule for implementation of modifications (installations or upgrade) for neutron fluxmonitoring consistent with the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2 or the NRC Staffs Safety Evaluation Report (SER) of the BWR Owners Group (BWROG) Licensing Topical Report (NEDO-31558, Position on NRC Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3, Requirements lor Post-Accident Neutron Monitoring System). The current schedule, as established by Amendment No. 28 to the license, states that modifications, ifrequired shall be completed before restart from the next refueling outage starting after 10 months from the date of receipt of the NRC Staff SER on NEDO-31558, but no later than January 1. 1991 unless otherwise notified in writing by the NRC staff.
Federal Register / Vol, No. 182 / Wednesday, August 23, 1989 / Notices
'Xhe proposed change would modify the implementation schedule to state that modifications, ifrequired, shall be completed before restart from the next zehieling outage starting after 18 months frcaa the date ofreceipt of the NRC Staff
. SER on NEDO-31558. The licensee's sabmitta) indicates that the reason for the proposed change is that an 18-month period is required from initial sgecification release to completed mstaBation of the neutron monitoring system (NMS).
Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinati ant
%u. Commission has provided stamhrds for determining whether a sigaiffcant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 5082(c). Aproposed enzndment.to'an operating license for a fac8ity involves no significa'rit hazards caasfderatfon Ifoperation ofthe faciBty inaccordance with the proposed amendment'wouldnot:
(1J Involve a
- sfgnf5cant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evafiarteth or (2) create the possibility of a net or different kind ofaccident &om aay ecddent previously evaluated; or (3) hivofve a significant redaction in a margin ofsafety. The licensee provided ais analysis that addressed the above thinre standards in the amendment appEcation.
4, No stgnlficant increase ia the probnbifity ee the consequences of an acddent yeeetausly evaluated results from this
. Pmposed change because:
Thire Is ao 'change Ia system design or operation. The IIcense condiIIon currently reqntres upgrade ofNMS during the third refnsI tag outage. This proposed change will aII'aw operation with the currently installed MMSwbtch has been. found to comply with ailciiterta proposed In Ihe BWROG letter.
Vtnesjjstem Is required io provide neutron Sax Iadicatton and is not postulated to faitiareaay acddentL The NMS Is used to reactor shutdown as part of the
. Rmirgency Operating Procedures fgOPs). The use ofneutron monttortng In the EQPs Is conservative ia that. IfIt Is aot available,
. actions are apedfied which willlead to safe shnbhwn wiihoot the system. The reqptrements ofRG 187 concenung neutron moaihiring are additions Io the existing systeaa ebIIIIIes. Therefore, delay in upgrade ioRGB requirements wIIIant significantiy Iacresee the probability ofsn accident and waahl aot lead to an Increase In the amacqueaces ofan scddent as defined In the ada'nalysis because of the coaeervattve EGP actions.
2.%les proposed change willaot create the passtbIJ!ty ofa aaw or different kiad of acd'dsas thaa any previously evaluated because:
T5ecarrsat system has been evahated usia@alternate criteria proposed Ia NEDO-31558aed foanil acceptable fer continued apersctoa. Thts chsags does ast Involve any chocqym to deaitgn or opsratkm. Ia sddNca.
the neutron monitoring system is not postuhited as the hitiator ofany ecddents.
Therefore, ao new or different accidents are created.
- 3. This proposed change does aot Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety because:
Design. function, and operation of the existing NMS remain the same, There Is no specific "margin ofsafety" associated with this systein as used Ia RG 1.97 other than to assure reactor shutdown foIIawiag a transiept or acddent. EOP actions are conservative with respect to the use of the NMS for veiificatton that the reactor Is shutdown. When aot available during an accident or transient scenario, actions are.
specified which wIIIIced to cafe reactor, shutdown. Because these actions teed Io a cafe plant condition (reactor shutdown). the maigbi ofsafety Is aot reduced. In addition.
this request docs aot result ia a redaction to the miagta ofsafety es defiaed Ia the bases of the RBS Technical Spedhtfoas.
Because the present RBS destga masts all criteiia provided Ia the BWROG LIcense Topical Report, NEDQ41558, which was submitted to the NRC April1.2888. as supported by the plant-spedfic evaluation attached (to Ibe Jnae 28, 1989 submittal),
extension of the Impismentsthm date for a NMSmeeting RG 1AK7guidance Is tustified.
This proposed extension afiows the NRC to complete their evaluation of the report, which provides an alteinattve design as allowed by the current license condition 'Io comply with the RG 147 requirements. Ia adifiboa, GSU willbe able io better plan Its resource utilization to address the NMS pursuant RG 1.%'fter the Staff's SER Is recetved.
The NRC staff has reviewed the Bcensee's no significant hazards consideration determination. Based on the review and the ebove discasslon, the staff proposes to determine that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Loaal Public Document Boom location: Government Documents Department. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Louisiana 70803 Attorneyforlicensee: Troy E Conner, Jr., Esq., Conner and Wetterhalm, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20008 MIC Praleat Director: Frederick J.
Heb don Iowa Electric Light and Power Company, Docket No. 50-331, Duine Arnold Energy Center, Lhm County, Iowa Dateuf amendment request: October 13, 1987 Descripdon ofamendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise Technical Speclffcation (TS) Table 3.2-B, "Instrumentatlon That initiates er Controls the Core and Containment Cooling'Systems." The revision ofTS Table 34-B would reQect the Containment High Pressure trip level setting to be greater than 2 psig, rather than the currant setting ofgreater than T psig but less than 2 psig. Additionally, the remarks section ofTS Table 3.2-B would be revised to state "Prevents inadvertent operation of containment spray during normal operation," rather than during "...accident condition".
These revisions are necessary to resolve an inconsistency between the DAEC Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and the DAEC TS.
Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
The Commissioit has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists
'n 10 CFR 5082(c). Aproposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no sigaificant hazards consideration.if operation of the facility in a'ccordance with the proposed amendnamt would not (1) involve a significant Increase in the probabflity or consequences ofan acddent previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident f'rom any acddent previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.
The licensee has provided an analysis of no significant hazards consideration in its request for a Bcense amendment.
The licensee hes conchded that the TS change does not involve a signiffcant increase in the probabiBty or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated becanse this change to the TS would resolve an inconsistency in the instrument setpoint deaBng with the control of the containment spray system at primary contaimnent pressures below 2 psig. The resolution of the inconsistency would not increase the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated.
The licensee has concluded that the TS change would not create the possibiBty ofa new or different kind of accident because this change would resolve an inconsistency in the TS to reflect an accident that has previously been evaluated in the FSAR. Therefore, no.possibility ofa new or different kind of accident would be created by the TS modification.
Finally, the licensee has concluded that the TS change would not involve a significant reduction ln the margin of safety because the proposal would not change the original ma+a of safety.
The staff has reviewed the Bcensee's evaluation of the proposed changes and agrees with the licensee's conclusion.
Therefore, the staff proposes to determine that the proposed change to the Technical SpecIBcations does not involve 8 signiffcant hazards consideration..
FerJeral Register / VoL, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 1 Notices 35108 cvocal Public Document Room location: Cedar Rapids Public Library.
500 First Street. SZ Cedar Rapids. Iowa 52401.
Attorneyforlicensee: Jack Newman.
Esquire, Kathleen H. Shee. Esquire, Newman and Holtzinger. 1815 LStreet.
NW>> Washington, DC 20036.
NBCProject Directors John N.
Hannon.
¹iagare Mohawk Power Corporation, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego County, New York Date ofamendment request: June 1.
1989 Description ofamendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification Table 4.6.2g.
Instrumentation That Initiates Control Rod Withdrawal Block - Surveillance Requitement and Table 4.8.2g Note (g) to delete surveillance requirements that are either inapplicable or cannot be performed due to instrument design limitations. The proposed changes will (1) remove the surveillance requirement to calibrate the Detector Not In Startup Position control rod block instruments
'ssociated with the Source Range Monitoring (SRM) and the Intermediate Range Monitoring (IRM)Instrument channels, (2) remove the surveillance requirement to calibrate the SRM and the IRMInstrument Inoperative control rqd block instrument channels, (3) remove the surveilhince requirement to perform sensor checks on the SRM and the IRMcontrol rod withdrawal block instrumentation and (4) revise Note (g) to Table 4AL2g to reflect the changes made to the table and the deletion ofthe
'equirement to calibrate SRM and IRM rod block instrumentation prior to shutdown.
Basis forproposed na significant hazards cansiderrttt'on determinatiant The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. Aproposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facility in accordance with a proposed amendment would not {1)Involve a signiflcant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated: or (2) Create the possibility of a new or diffeient kind ofaccident from any acddent previously evaluated: or (3)
Involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety. The staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal and concludes:
- 1. The operation ofNine Mile Point Unit 1 in accordance with the proposed amendment. willnot involve a significant 9?creese Irlthe plobebliityor consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the deleted surveillance requirements willnot have an adverse effect upon the abilityof the Control Rod Block circuitry to perform its intended safety function.
The SRM and IRMsystems provide multiwhannel monitoring of the core thermal neutron fluxduring startup and lowpower operation. In addition. the SRM and IRM systems willinitiate a rod withdrawal block for high neutron fiux or channel malfunction conditions.Both the SRM and the IRMsystems provide
'etector Not In Startup Position.
Inoperative and Upscale trip signals to the control rod withdrawal block circuitry end the IRMsystein provides a Downscale trip signal.
The SRM and the IRMDetector Not in Startup Position instrument channels initiate a control rod block to ensure that control rods ttre not withdrawn unless the appropriate detectors are properly positioned and capable of providing the operator and the circuitry with neutron fluxinformation. The licensee has indicated that the design of these instrument channels does not allow the output ofthe detector to be varied in response to a variable test signal. Therefore, since the trip is either on or offin response to the detector position switch, it cannot be calibrated.
The proposed change to delete the requirement to calibrate this function willnot affect the abilityof the rod block to function as required. since the performance of the associated functional tests at the existing Technical Specification required frequency verifies operability of the rod block function.
Also, preventive maintenance realignment of the detector retraction mechanism limitswitches each refueling outage ensures proper detector and position switch alignment.
An SRM and IRMinstrument channel inoperative rod block is initiated on low rietector voltage, electronics drawer internal module unplugged. or the channel mode switch not in the Operate position. Since none of these inputs require calibration. the proposed change to delete the surveillance requirement to calibrate the instrument channel Inoperative function willnot'affect their ability to initiate a rod block when required. AdditionaQy, the functional tests on the instrument channels at the existing Technical Specification required frequency ensures operability of the rod block function.
The rod block instrument channels are digital/bistable channehi and their output signal is either present or absent depending upon the state of the sensor.
Because the conditions that generate an output signal (high neutron flux.or channel malfunction) are received only when the event is present. a qualitative determination ofacceptable operability by observation or comparison with other independent sensors measuring the same variable (i.e., a sensor check) is not possible. Therefore, the proposed change to delete the sensor check requirement for the SRM and IRM instrument channels willnot affect the ability of the channels to perform as required.
A control rod withdrawal block functions to prevent control rod withdrawal only. Therefore, the change to delete the requirement to calibrate the SRM and IRMrod withdrawal block instrument channels prior to shutdown (rod insertion) does not affect the ability of these channels to perform as required.
A proposed administrative change to Note (g) ofTable 4.8.2g refiects the above proposed changes to Table 4.6.2g.
In summary. the proposed changes do not affect the analyses of abnormal operational transients or design basis accidents as presented in Section XVof the Final Safety Analysis Report. 'Ihe proposed changes do not change the design or operation of the detector or
. instrumentation and. therefore. do not increase the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
- 2. The operation ofNine MilePoint Unit 1, in accordance with the proposed amendment. willnot create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated since the proposed changes do not alter the design or operation of the detector or instrumentation systems.
- 3. The operation ofNine MilePoint Unit 1. in accordance with the proposed amendment. willnot involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because.
as discussed previously, the deleted surveillance requirements are unnecessary and do not affect the abilityof the Control Room Block circuitry to function as required, Specifically, the SRM and the IRM Detector Not In Startup Position rod block instrument channel calibrations required by the existing Technical Specification are being deleted because the design of the instrumentation does not facilitate calibration. The performance of functional tests on the instrument channels and preventive maintenance checks of the detector limit
'switches presently required by the Technical Specifications adequately ensures instrument operability and alignment. respectively. Calibration of the SRM and the IRMinstrument channel inoperative rod block required
35108 by the existing Technical Specification is not necessary because the channel inputs do not require calibration.
The sensor checks required by the Technical Specifications are not applicable because sensor checks cannot be performed on the digital/
bistable outputs from the SRM and IRM sensors that initiate control rod blocks
'detector not in startup position, inoperative, upscale and downscale).
The requirement to calibrate Control Rod Withdrawal instrumentation prior to shutdown (control rod insertion) is not necessary since control rod withdrawal blocks are only applicable for rod withdrawal, Based upon the above, the staff proposes that the amendment willnot involve a significant hazards consideration.
'LocalPublic Document Room location: Reference and Documents Department, Penfield Library, State University ofNew York, Oswego, New York 13126.
Attorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire, Conner 5 Wetterhahn, Suite 1050, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW.,
Washington, DC 2000L NRC Project Director. Robert A, Capra
. PhHsde]ph]a Electric Company, Docket No. 50-352, Limerick Generat]ng Station, Unit1, Montgomery County, Pennsylv'ania Date ofamendment request: July 11, 1989 Description ofamendment request:
The propo'sed amendment would revise the Technical Spec]fications (TS) in response to NRC Generic Letter (GL)I-08 "Removal ofOrganization Charts from Technical Specification Administrative Control Requirements" to: (1) remove the onsite and offsite organizational charts kom TS Section 6%1 and 6.2.2, respectively and (2) make carta]n miscellaneous administrative changes in Section 8 of the TSs (Administrative Control) related to revisians to the corporate organization.
GL NHN encourages licensees to propose changes to their TS to remove organizational charts kom TS and replace them with descriptions of the organizational structure and characteristics which are important to safety. The proposed changes concern the Admln]strative Controls in Section 6.0, and do not affect any Limiting Conditions for Operation or Surveillance Requirements. The proposed changes in this amendment request are grouped into two categories, Category A and Categary B. Category 'A'roposeg changes involve remaving the onsite ang offsite organizational charts kom TS Sections 8.2.1 and 62@ respectively.
requirements of 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6) the These proposed changes are consistent applicant's organizational structure is with the gu]dance provIded in GL SHN.
Inc]uded in the LGS Final Safety Category 'B'roposed changes are five Analysis Report, Chapter 13. As miscellaneous administrative changes.
required by 10 CFR 50.71(e), the licensee These proposed changes are to: (1) submits annual updates to the FSAR.
. revise paragraphs in Sections 6.2 and 6.5 The administrative changes involving to reflect the new organization under the a position title change, creation of an Executive Vice President-Nuclear, (2) advisory board, distribution of audit revise paragraph 6.5.2.1 to indicate that 'eports, ISEG composition, and the Nuc]ear Review Board (NRB) reports elimination of unnecessary review to and advises the Executive Vice details, do not involve the design or President-Nuclear, (3) revise paragraph operation ofplant hardware or systems.
8.5.2.9.C to indicate that NRB audit Accidents analyzed remain unaffected reports shall be forwarded to the by these changes.
Corporate Officer(s) responsible for the B. The proposed changes do not create areas audited, (4) revise paragraphs the pass]bi]lty of a new or different king 8Z.3.2 and 6.2.3.4 to reflect title changes, ofacc]dent from any accident previously and the de]et]on of the corporate eva]usted IndePendent Safety Engineering Group Rempving the organhafipn charts and (5) revise paragraph 6.14.2 to reflect -
from TS goes not affect p]ant operat]on.
the groups responsible for technical The proposed changes dp not increase review of the Offsite Dose Calculation or decrease the qua))fioat]on, experience Basis farPraizosednasignificant offs]te LImerick Generat]ng Station hazards consideratian determinati ant (LGS) perspnnel The LGS The Commission has provided standaM for date~in]ng whether a Assurance Pmg am contains detailed s~icanthazards cons]dmauonexist om~afion charts andassociated as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). Aproposeg, desmIPOons of esPons]bfl]Ues.
invo]ves no significant hazards
%.54(a)(3) govern changes to the cons]gerat]on Ifoperafion of the facflity in accordance with the proposeg
~g ~ R accordance mS the amendment wou]g nat: (1) invo]ve a req~ements of10 CW 0W(b)(6) Se signifcant inuease In the probab]IIty or aPP]icant's organizational structure is consequences of'an accident p~v]ous]'y'ncluded in the LGSF]nal Safety eva]uateg: (2) create the possib))ity ofa Analysis RePo< ChaPter 13. As new or different k]ng of accident from required by 10 C 50.71(e), the licensee any accident previous]y eva]uateg; or (3) submits annual uydates to the &~.
involve a signlficant reduction in a The administrative changes involving margin of safety.
a position title change, creation ofan The licensee has provided an analysis advisory board, distribution, ofaudit ofthe no sign]ficant hazards reports, ISEtt G composition, and consideration In Its request for a license e]imination of unnecessary review amendment for each of the prppaseg details, do not involve the design or changes discusseg previpus]y The Staff operation ofplant hardware or systems.
has reviewed the licensee's ana]ysis of N. new modes of operation, changes to the proposed amendment against the setPoints or changes in aPerating three standards in 10 CFR 50 92 ang parameters result from this change.
finds that:
.. C. The proposed changes do not A. The proposed changes go not involve a significant reduction in a involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an The removal of the organization accident previously evaluated, charts from TS is accompanied by the Removing the,organhatian charts addition ofrequirements for the kern TS does not affect plant operation.
Limerick organizational structure which The proposed changes do not increase are needed to maintain the essential or decrease the qualification, experience aspects of the material being removed.
or training requirements of onsite or This willperm]t the imp]ementation of-offsite Limerick Generating Stat]on organizational changes without prior (LGS) personnel. The LGS Quality NRC approval provided the change Assurance Program contains detailed meets these added organizational organhation charts and associated structure requirements. Consequently, descriptions ofresponsibilities.
enhancements to the organizational Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and 10 CFR structure, as well as minor SOW(a)(3) govern changes to the administrative changes such as position organhations described in the QA 'itlerevisions, can be implemented Program. In accordance w]th the promptly upon identificatian of the need
Federa1 Register / Vol. 64, No. 162 / VtIednesday, August 23, 19B Notices 35M'or the change thereby creating a positive impact on safety.
The administrative changes involving a position title change, creation ofan advisory board, distribution ofaudit reports, ISEG composition, and elimination ofunnecessary review details, do not involve the design or operation ofplant hardware or systems; No new modes of operation, changes to setpoints or changes in operating parameters result from this change.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal and significant hazards analysis and concurs with the licensee's determination as to whether the proposed amendment involves no sigtuficant hazards consideration.
Therefore, the Staff proposes to determine that the proposed amendment involves no signiBcant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Boom location: Pottstown Public Library, 500 High Street. Pottstown, Pennsylvania
- 19464, Attorneyforlicensee. Conner and Wetterhahn. 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue.
NW., Washington, DC 20008 NRCPie/eat Duectarr Walter R Butler Philadelphia Electric Company, Pub)le Service Electric and Gss Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company, and AtlanticCityElectric Company Dockets NoL60477 and $0478, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units Nos. 2 and 3, Yodc County, Pennsylvania Date ofapplication foramendments; lu)y11, 1939 Description ofamendment request These amendments would remove the organization charts from the technical Specifications to the FSAR in response to the guidance set forth in the NRC staffs Generic Letter 8846 "Removal of Organization Charts from Techn)ca)
SpeciBcation Administrative Control Requirements." Several administrative changes involving changes in position titles and reporting relationships are also proposed. These proposed changes to the organization charts and the administrative changes have been grouped as Category A and Category B changes, respectively in the licensee's application.
Basis forproposed no si'gnificant hazards consideration.determinationt 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 signiBcant haziuds consideration ifoperation ofthe fadllty in accordance with the proposed amendment won)d 1to t (1) involve a signiBcant 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 signiBcant reduction in a margin of safety. The licensee has provided a discussion of the proposed changes as they relate to these standards; the discussion is presented below. The licensee has arranged these changes into two categories. The licensee's discussion of each of these categories is presented separately as follows.
Standanf 1 The proposed Category 'A'hsnges do aot involve a significant iacteese ia the probability or consequences ofaay accident previously evaluated.
Removiag the otgaatzstina charts from the Technical Specificatioas aad tepiadag them with mate general language does aot affect plant operation. The proposed changes do aat Increase or decrease the quaitficatioa.
experience or training requirements of oasite or oifsite audeat personneL Additioaelly. Ihe proposed changes do aot affect the shift crew composition or the facilitymanagement positions tc;quittng an NRC license.
The Peach Bottom Quality Assurance Plan coataias detailed otgaaizatlon charts and assodated descripttoa ofindividual aad group responsibilities as they apply to the operation aad support of the Peach Bottom facility.Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) govern changes to the otgaaization as dsscttbed ia the Quality Assurance Plan.
10 CFR 5L34(b)(8) requires that the otgaatzationat structure also be iaduded In the Final Safety Analysis Report. Section 13 of the Updated Final Safety Analysts Report provides a description of the otgaaization aad detailed otgeaizatioa charts. As tequited by 10 CFR 5L71(e), this iafotmettoa must be maintained and updated anauelly. Based on this review. it Is caaduded that the proposed Category 'A'hanges da nat involve a sigalficaat increase in the probability ot consequences ofany accideat previous)y evaluated.
Standant2 The proposed Category 'A'hanges do aot create the polsibilltyofa new or different kind of acddent fram any acddent previously evaluated.
The proposed changes are administrative Ia nature, and do not Involve any physical alterations ot plaat canfigutations or changes to setpoiats, or operating parameters. It is therefore concluded that removing the otganlzatina charts from the Technical Specificatioas does aot create the possibility of a new or diffetent kind of accident from any previously evaluate*
~
Standard 3 The proposed Category 'A'hanges do aot result in a sigaificant reduction in the matgla of safety.
Removing the otgenizatioa charts from the Technical Specifications enhances the margin of safety by petmltting an organizational change without NRC approval ptovtded that the obiectives af ptapossd paragraph 8.2.1 are met, thereby allowing a more timely response to situations where the apptoptiate action Is a prompt organizational change.
Safety is further enhanced by providing clear aad concise definition ofresponsibility for the Shift Supervisor, Plant Manager and Vice President. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Further, the proposed changes include additional administrative controls which capture the essential aspects of the material being removed such that the associated requirements willcontinue to be met. Based on this review. it is concluded that the proposed Category 'A'hanges do aot result ia a sigaificaat reduction In the margin of safety, but improve the margin of safety.
Standard 1
The ptoposed Category 'B'iscellaneous changes da not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Replacing the technical Engineer with the Engineer-Systems on the PORC willaot decrease the effectiveness of the PORC. As required by proposed specification 8.2.2.g.
either the Superintendent-Technical or the Engineer-Systems willhold a Senior Reactor Operator license. thereby ensuring the level ofplant operations expertise of the PORC.
Suffideat corporate management involvement in nuclear plant safety willbe maintained with the elimination of the direct reporting requirement of the NRB to the Office of the Chief Executive. The Office of the Chief Executive wfilbe made aware of NRB activities by the Nuclear Committee of the Boatd through the Board ofDirectors aad by the Executive Vice President Nuclear.
Desigaatiag Corporate Ofiicet(s) responsible for the areas audited instead of the Executive Vice President-Nuclear as the recipient(s) ofNRB audit tepotts is a mote appropriate initiallevel ofreview. The Cotpotate Officers have a closer proximity ta the sources of problems and therefore can take prompt corrective actions. IfNRB audit findings are aot satisfactorily addressed by the Corporate Officet(s), the NRB may inform the Executive Vice President-Nuclear through its normal communication channel as defined in Specification 8S~.
Section 14 of the PBAPS UFSAR hss been reviewed to determine the effect of the proposed administrative changes on previously evaluated accidents. It is concluded that the accident analyses in Section 14 of the VFSAR are not affected by the proposed miscellaneous changes. For this reason. as well as the reasons presented above. it is coaduded that these changes do aot involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated.
Standard 2 The proposed Category 'B'iscellaneous changes do not create the possibtlity of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
'The implementation of these miscellaneous changes willnot affect the interpretation ot intent of the specifications they involve (8$.1.2, 8.5.2.9 aad L52 10.c). These changes are purely administrative snd,do aot involve any hardware changes or plant modifications.
.Thetefote, these cheages willaot create the '
S$108 Federal Register / VoL 64, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, '1989 / Notices possibility ofa new or different ldnd of accident from any previously evaluated.
Standard 3 The proposed Category 'B'iscellaneous changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The administrative nature of these changes willnot impact plant systems or operation.
For this reason. as well as the reasons presented in the Safety Assessment and in response to item 1 above, it is concluded that these changes willnot involve any reduction in a margin ofsafety.
The staff has reviewed the license'8 no significant hazards consideration determination for the Category A and B changes discussed above and agrees with the licensee's analysis, Accordingly, the Commission has proposed tadetermine that the above changes do not involve a signiQcant hazards consideration.
LocalPublic Document Boom location: Government Publications Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17128 AttorneyforLicensee: Troy B. Conner, Jr., 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20006 NRCProject Director: Walter R.
Butler Philadelphia Electric Company, Pub)lc, Service Electric and Gas Company, Delmarva Power and LightCompany, and Atlantic City Electric Company, Dockets Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units Nos. 2 and 3, York County, Pennsylvania Date ofapplication foramendments:
July 19, 1989 Description ofamendment request:.
The proposed amendments would eliminate the requirement for use of the Rod Sequence Control System (RSCS) and would decrease the power level setpoint above which.the Rod Worth Minimizer(RWM)would no longer be required to be used f'rom tlie existing 25% power level requirement at both
.units to a new 10% power level setpoint.
The licensee states that these proposed amendments are based on and are consistent with the NRC Safety Evaluation Report issued to J, S.
Charnley on December 27, 1987, which approved Amendment 17 ofGeneral Electric Topical Report NEDE-24011-P-
. A, "General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel"..
Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determinati on:
The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consider'ation exists (10 CFR 5082(c)). A proposed amendment ta,an operating license for a facilitJJ involves no significant hazards consideration ifoperation ofthe faci)ity 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 ofsafety. The licensee has provided a discussion of the proposed changes as they relate to these standards; the discussion is presented below.
Standard 1: The proposed revisions do not involve a signtTicant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Deleting the RSCS and changing the low power set point on the RWM has no effect on the probability of equipment malfunction in other systems or within the RWM.
The probability qf,occunence of a' accident ls not affected by this change. The probability of an RDA is dependent only on the control rod drive system and mechanisms themselves, and not in any way on the RSCS or RWM.
The consequences ofan RDA as evaluated ln the PBAPS UFSAR willnot be affected by this modification. An extensive probabilistic study was performed by the NRC staff (letter.
and enclosure fromB. C. Rusche. NRR. to R.
'raley, ACRS, dated June 1, 1978, "Generio Item IIA-2Control Rod Drop Accident (BWRs)"), This study indicated that there was not a need for the RSCS. Furthermore, improved methodologies in the RDA analysis methods (e.g. BNI NUREG 28109, 'Thermal-Hydraulic Effects on Center Rod Drop Accidents in a BoilingWater Reactor,"
October 1980) indicated that the peak fuel
, enthalpies resulting from an RDA are significantly lower than previously determhed by less refined methodologies.
. 'Ihe RSCS duplicates the function of the RWM. So long as the RWMis operable, the RSCS Is not needed since the RWMprevents control rod pattern error. In the event the RWMis out ofservice, after the withdrawal of the first 12 control rode, the proposed Technical Spectfications require that control rod withdrawal movement and compliance with the prescribed control rod pattern be verlfied by a second licensed operator or technically qualified member of the station technical staff, The verification process is controlled proceduraHy to ensure a high quality, independent review of control rod movement. In addition, to further minimize control rod movement at low power with the RWM out of service, the proposed Technical Specificatlons willpermit only one plant start-up per calendar year with the RWMout of service prior to or during the withdrawal of the flrst twelve control rode. Allthe above taken together demonstrate consistency and
'pplicability to those conclusions reached in the referenced NRC SER, and substantiate the conclusion that there willbe no hicrease in the consequences ofan RDA as evaluated ln the FSAR as a result ofeliminating the '
RSCS.
There willalso be no increase in the consequences of an RDA as evaluated in the UFSAR due to lowering the RWM set point from 25% to 10%. The effects of an RDA are more severe at low power levels and are less severe as power level increases. Although the original calculations for the RDA were performed at 10% power, the NRC required that the generic BWR Technical Spectficattons be written to require operation of the RWMbelow 25% power in order to ensure conservatism. However, GE continued to perform the RDA analyses at and below 10% power because these produced more conservative analytical results. More refined calculations by BNL(BNI NUREG 28109, "Thermal-Hydraulic Effects on Center Rod Drop Accidents ln a BoilingWater Reactor,"
October 1980) have shown that even with the maximum single control rod position error, and most multiple control rod error pat terns, -.
the peak fuel rod enthalpy reached during an RDAfrom these control rod patterns would not exceed the NRC hnlt of280 cal/gm for RDAs above 10% power, confirming the original GE analyses. Hence, lowering the RWM set point from 25% to 10% willnot result in an increase in the consequences of an'RDA as evaluated in the UFSAR. The previously referenced NRC SER has concluded this RWM set point reduction to be acceptable.
Standard 2: The proposed revisions do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Operation of the RSCS and RWM cannot cause or prevent an accident. They function to minimize the consequences of an RDA.
The RDAIs already evaluated in the UFSAR, and the effect of this proposed change on the analyses is discussed in Item 1 above.
Elimination of the RSCS and lowering the RWMset point willhave no Impact on the operation ofany other systems, and hence would not contribute to a malfunction in any other equipment nor create the possibility for an accident to occur which has not already bien evaluate*
Standard 3: The proposed'revisions do not involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.
Elimination of the RSCS willnotlower the margin of safety for the reasons discussed in Item 1 above and summarized below:
a) An extensive NRC study has determined that the possibility ofan RDA resulting in unacceptable consequences is so low as.to negate the requirement for the RSCS.
b) Recent calculations have determined that the consequences ofan RDA are acceptable above 10% power.
c) The RSCS is redundant in function to the RWM.Eliminating the RSCS does not eliminate the control rod pattern monitoring function performed by the RWM.
d) To ensure that the RWM willbe in service when required, the proposed RWM Technical Specificatton willbe revised to allow only one startup per calendar year with.
the RWMout ofservice prior to or during the withdrawal of the first twelve control rods. If:..
the RYE is otitofservice below10% power,.
control rod moveinent and compliance with...,,.
'prescribed control md patterns wiii.be
23, "
/;Naticea 35XOQ".
Vf Q~~TNv4~,~ ~MJh ~
rt verified by a sec'on'ifiicensed operator. or..
t'echnicalstaff.XCs situation is controlled by station procedure which spedficaIIy requires the followtntp
~ Plant Management approval Is required in order for the operator to bypass the inoperable RWM.
~.A second operator or technically qualified staff member, with no other duties, is required to verify the first operator's actions while the first operator performs rod movements.
~ The startup and the shutdown sequences with their respective signoif sheets provide forverification by the second operator after each rod movement step Is compieted by the first operator.
~ The startup and shutdown sequences followthe same control rod patterns that the RWM enforces ifit were not bypassed.
There Is no significant reduction in the margin of safety resulting from lowering the RWM set point from 25% to 10% because calculations by GE and BNLhave shown that even with the maximum single control rod position error, and most multiple error "
'patterns, the peak fuel rod enthalpy during an
'DAfrom these patterns would not exceed the NRC limitf280 cal/gm) above 10%'power.
In summary, GE bas provided technical justificatio for the proposed changes in the Topical Report NEDE-24011-P-A and associated references which Justify the acceptability of the proposed changes.
The NRC has reviewed end accepted the GE analysis and provided guidelines for licensees wanting to make the changes
'roposed in NEDF 24011-P-A and approved in the NRC SER issued December 27. 1987 to J.S. Charniey ofGeneral Electric.
The proposed changes are consistent with those approved in the NRC SER and the guideihes set forth therein. Therefore. there is no significant reduction In a margin of
'afety, The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's analysis. Accordingly, the Commission has proposed to determine that the above changes do not involve a signiflcant hazards consideration.
Local Public Dacumeri t Boom location: Government Publications Section, State Library ofPennsylvania, Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets. Harrisburg,
'ennsylvania 17128 AttorneyforLicensee: Troy B. Conner, Jr., 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20008 NRCeject Director: Walter R.
Butler Power Authority of the State of New.
York, Docket No. 50@$ 3, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego, New York Date ofamendment request: May 31, 1989 and amplifled by letter dated July 7, 1989 Descriptiaa ofamendment request:
The proposed amendment would modify
" the core spray (CS) pump fIowrate test requirements to make the wording more consistent with the wording ofthe flow rate test requirements of other Itumps in the Emergency Core Cooling System.
Presently, the CS pump test requirement in Specification 4.5%.1.b.states that the "Core Spray shall deHver at least 4825 gpm against a system head corresponding to s total pump developed head ofgreater than or equal to 113 psig." The amendment would change this to read that the "Core Spray pumps shall deliver at least 4825 gpm against a system head corresponding Io
. a reactor vessel pressure ofgreater than or equal Io 113 psi above primary containment pressure."
~
Basis forpraposed no significant hazanis consideration determination:
The, Commission has provided standards for,determining whether a signlflcant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no signiflcant hazards consideration if,operation ofthe 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 previously evaluated: or (3) Involve a signiflcant reduction in a margin of safety:
'helicensee has evaluated the proposed'amendment against the standards provided above and has made the followingdetermination:
Operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nudear Power Plant in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a signtficant hazards consideration as stated In 10 CFR 50.92. since It would non
- 1. involve significant increase in the '
probability. or consequences of an accident.
previously evaluated. The intent of the proposed change Is to clarify and correct tlie Technical Spedfications. The change Is purely administrative In nature. There are no setpoint changes, safety limitchanges, or changes to limitingconditions for operation.
The proposed change assures that the core spray system is tested in accordance with the assumptions contained In the existing.
accident arialyses. This change has no Impact on plant safety operations. The change will have no Impact on previously evaluated acddents.
- 2. create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident front those previously evaluated. The proposed change Is purely administrative in nature and Is Intended to darify and Improve the quality of the.Technical Spedfication. The change cannot create the possiblity of a new or different kind of accident.
.3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The proposed change
. corrects an enor which currently existti In the Technical Spedficatfons. The change Is administrative in nature and willdarify the spedfications. 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 negatively.
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 ofNew York, Penfield Library, Reference and Documents Department. Oswego, New York 13126.
Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. Charles hL Pratt, 10 Columbus, Circle, New York, New York 10019.
-NRC Pmj ect Director; Robert A.
Capra Public Service Electric Ik Gas Company, Docket Nos, 50-272 and SM11, Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos, 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey Date ofamendment request: July 9, 1987 Description ofamendment request:
The licensee proposes to modify the Salem Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Speciflcations by:
- 1. Changing the channel description format for item 7.a ofTable 33-3, Loss of Voltage, to specify that the total number of channels is 1 per bus.
- 2. For Item 7.b ofTable 3.3-3, Sustained Degraded Voltage, changing the Total Number of Channels, Channels to Trip and Minimum Channels Operable to 3 per bus, 2 per bus and 3 per bus, respectively.
- 3. For Item 7.b ofTable 3.34, Sustained Degraded Voltage, changing the Trip Satpoint to greater than or equal to 91.6 percent of bus voltage for less than or equal to 13 seconds and changing the Allowable Values Io greater than or equal to 91 percent of bus voltage for less than or equal to 15 seconds.
Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
Item 1. Table 3.3-3 Item 7.a This item is being revised Io be
.consistent with the channel description format used for other items in this Table.
This is an editorial change only. No
, modification is being made to the primary undervoltage protection system.
~ Item 2, Table 3.3-3 Item 7.b The second level undervoltage
=
protection system.has been redasignad
~"u"-.
1 ~
Al
- aiI~
ws
- zt
3$ilO Federal Reghtar j Vo). 54, No. 182 / Mfedneaday, August 23, 198e / Notices as a result ofan event which occurred at protecUoa. The present Technical
. Salem Unit No. 2 on August 28. 1ff88.
SpeciffcaUon allowable value Eor second Immediately followinga reactor trip level undervoltage protection is in error with safety inlection, the Unit 2 vital as it does not reBect'an allowance for buses began Qip-Hopping between the line loss due to cable length (about ay No. 21 and 22 Station Power percent), However, the present trip Transfonrrers (SFf) (preferred source of setpoint for the second level power) until they eventually separated undervoltage protecUon system (equal from the offsite power system. The to or greater than 01 percent) provides previous design provided forthe transfer sufficient margin to account for those of a vitalbus to the alternate SPI'osses.
The new trip setpoint ofgreater whenever the secondary voltage forits than or equal to 91.8 percent is based on designateil SPI'ropped below S1 the results of detailed analyses of the percent ofrated bus voltage for greater Salem Generating Station electrical than 10 seconds.'Ihfs function was distribution system transient response controlled by 2 relays on each vital bus.
characterisUcs. Those analyses indicate These relays were positioned such that, that, at the Public Service Electric and they monitor the seccmdary voltage of Gas (PSEgrG) bulk power system" each of the SFI'(1 per SPQ. In addition minimum expected value of 505 KVand to initiatingthe transfer function these for a LOCA on one Salem Unit and a relays provided a transfer permissive concurrentorderly.shutdown ofthe signal such that a vital bus could not be other Unit, vital bus voltage willrecover, transferred unless the alternate Spf has to a worse case value oE about 028 an acceptable secondary volta'ge. A percent.Me minimum allowable trip separate relay monBored vitalbus value and trip setpoint are derived using voltage and provided an input to each of the % percent minimum motor terminal the three Safeguards Equ/pment voltage requirement as a starting point, Controllers (SEC) such that, fot a and then applying appropriate sustained degradecl voltage {less than 81 aHowances'as provided in Regulatory percent for greater than 13 seconds)
Guide 1 105 condition on 2 out of 3 vital buses, all The Commission has provided
'ital buses ware separated from the
'tandards for determining whether~
offsite source and sequenced onto the signi8cant hazards consideraUon exists emergency source.
(10 CFR 5082[c)) Aproposed As redesigned, the transfer EuncUon, 'mendmant to an operating license fora was eHmfnated. The existing transfer facilityfnvoiyes no slgnlQcant hazards relays were replaced withrelays of consfderaUori ifoperation oF the Facility similar desfgft bnt wfthfmprrrvad in accordance with the proposed setpofnt drih characteristics. These new amendment would not: (1) involve a relays [1 per bus) were connected to signHlcant increase in the probabiHty or operate in parallel with the prevfous consequences of an accident previously vital bus degraded voltage relay. The
.. evaluated: or (2) create the possibility of previous vitalbus degraded voltage a new or diFerent kind ofaccident from relay was also replaced with tin any accident previously evaluated; ov (S) upgraded relay. The interface with fhe involve a significant reducUon in a SEC was then reocmffgured from its margin ofsafety.
'revious 2 out of 3 bus design to a 2 out -
- 1. For Item 'F.b ofTaMe 3.84, the of 3 relay per bus design. Afailure Hcensee has analyzed the proposed analysis has been cr'nnpleted by the
'mendment to determine iE a sfgnfacant Hcensee for each component In the hazard existL system and demonstrates that no single
').'Ihopropoaod charigoa do riot frivolvo a failure wfHresult in the creation of an afgrii"carit fiicraaao firthe probahfffiyof unanalyzed coniHtion.~e new confignratfcnn (1) elfmhiates the fperformod by the ffcenaeei domonatratoa possfbfHty crfvital bus Ilfp-floppfng,[2) that no afrigfo fafhuo raaulfa la iho exfateriae provides for the se aration ofthe vital I oii uuaiirdyxod coridftforLAddftfriaaffy the accoQd Iovolimdatvoftago praQKAioa ayatoia fndfviduai basis only and (3) satfsQes does aot Iiiovidaau fuplt to tho Reactor General Design Criterion~ relative to
~tBGUon System nor can it cause any one of maintalnfffg the comrectfon between the from the SsIoragtarfirriofoctriootdfarribotiorr
~
the incomfaa 500 KVaoaroos to ho feafatad offsfte source and the onsfte distribution
'ystem. Alioquffuuaritlcd hr the ayorolrr Hiff syste5L be aelsmfcaBy quaffRod. 'Giorafor>>, rha Item S, Tabb 3.$4 Item 7.b prohahQQy ofocauaaaae olan oocfdont This tab% fs being mused to: [1)
'~I~
incorporate the ressed trip satpcfint for the second @vei rmdgrvoftaga vrotecUon
~q to p tee g~ ~so~a {~
relays, and (2)f0 crrrrgct thrf05ewable,,
fri a degradad voffaffaat the vftaf haaes hat bulk power ayatam dagicidatioril wfrfohreaaft value fot ggccmd Igvelmnhrvcfltaje
" whfch do not result fria complete ioaa af voltage. The modfBcd system concfnuoa to satisfy thfa requfreraeat rw pravtorialy diacuaaecL Additionally, hy effrrrfnatlng the ability io transfer between SPI'a, the potential fordamage to safety related motors from frequent starts ia eliminated. 'Ihe increased radundaacy in tha SEC fogfc inputs provides greater assurance that the system willperfonu fta Intended function. Therefore, the consequences ofprevtouafy anefyxed accidents ivrnafri unchrmged.
z) 'Iticprofaned changes do not create iho possibility of a new or difFerent kind of aacfdoirt From any accident prevlousfy evaluated. As demerrstrated fri [the faifure analysis), no sfrigfe faffure willresult fn ihe exfaferrce ofan ansnafyxed condition. The second level undervoftege system does not provide any fiiputto the Reactor Protection System nor can it cause any one of the incoming 500 KVsources to be fsofated From the Salem Station electrical diatnbution system-The modified deaigri aHmmaies the poaaihffffy ofQip4oppirig of the vital huaca between oifsfto power sources and thereby aasurea the evaffabQity ofoffsafety rotated equipment.
~ 3) The proposed changes do riot involve o algiifffcantreduction in a margin o! aafety.
Tha charigea to the eocorid Ievaf undorvoftotfe system maincaia the exfatirrgmaqja ofaahrty by affmhiatfrig the trenafer between crffafte sources, thereby aaauifng that the fncogrtty of safety rdated electrical eqafpmrrnt fa mainteinocL 'Ihe addfrfcmat rodundaucjj provided in the revised cfoaign enhances the overall reHaMty ofthe system and farther assures that the syatera 6inction wittbe campfetecL
'Ihe staff has reviewed the licensee's significant hazards consideraUon determination analysis for the changes associated with item 7.b ofTable~
and concurs with the licensee'a-determination that the proposed changes do not fnvobre a sfy66cant hazards consideration.
- 2. With respect to the d
change to item y.a ofTa b Sd-S and Item y.b ofTaMe 3.$4, the Commfssfrm has provided gafdance concerning the appHcaUon ofits standards set forth fn 10 CFR 50.S2 by providfng certain examples (81 FR yy51). One ofthe examples, [I),of an amendment Hkely to involve no sfgm6cant hazards consideration negates to "h purely administrative change to technical speciibaffons: for example, a change to achieve consistency throughout flic technical specfQcatfans, conecUon ofan error or a change in nomenclature."
Another example, (ii), of an amendment ffkefyto fnvoive no significant hasarda oonsf dere tfon relates to "Achange that ooastftNfee an addiUonal limitaUon, reatrfctfcrn, or control not presently included in the technical specfffoatfons, ~ ariose
~
stringent surveillance requirement."
(a) Item y.a ofTable W4
Federal Reghter /
- l. 54, No. 182 / Wednesday, August 989 / Notices The change from 3 to 1 per bus is a change in nomenclature. There are 3 buses, each equipped with a shutdown channel so the change to1per bus meets example (i).
(b) Table 3.3<, Item 7.b, Allowable Value The current Technical Specifications do not take into account the line loss (voltage drop) because of cable length.
This change willcorrect that and therefore, meets example (i),
(c) Table 3.3<, Item 7.b Trip Setpoint Changing the value from greater than or equal to 91 percent to greater than or equal to 91.8 percent is a more stringent requirement. Therefore this change meets example (ii).
Based on the above the staff proposes to determine that the changes to Table 3.34, Item 7.a and Table 3.3%, Item 7.b do not involve a significant hazards consideration because they change the nomenclature, correct an error or provide a more stringent requirement.
LocalPublic Document Room location: Salem Free Public library, 112 West Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079 Attorneyforlicensee: Mark J.
Wetterhahn, Esquire, Conner and
~
Wetterhahn, Suite 10SO, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20008 NRC Project Director: Walter R.
Butler Public Service Electric tk Gas Company, Docket Nos. 50-2?2 and SM11, Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey Date ofamendment request: January 28, 1989 and May 22, 1989 Description ofamendment request: By letter dated January 28, 1989, the licensee proposed to withdraw the wording in their June 23, 1988 letter, of Surveillance Requirement 4.1.3.4.a (no change from current Technical Specifications).
By letter dated May 22, 1989, the licensee proposed to modify Surveillance Requirement 4.1.3.4 and 4.1.3.5 by adding a footnote as follows:
"For power levels below 50 percent one hour thermal "soak time" is permitted.
During this soak time, the absolute value of rod motion is limited to six steps.
This is applicable prior to verification of rod positions.
The original request, dated June 23, 1988, was noticed on January 11, 1989 (54 FR 1024).
Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
The licensee's January 28, 1989 letter withdrew a proposed change in Surveillance Requirement 4.1.3.4.a that would have replaced "Within15 minutes prior to withdrawal ofany rods in control banks A, B, C or D during an approach to reactor critically(sic)" with "Within1S minutes prior to withdrawal of any control bank during an approach to reactor critcally (sic)". Because this change was not discussed in the licensee's June 23, 1988 application the licensee was asked to justify the change.
The licensee chose to withdraw the change. Therefore, no change is being proposed to this section.
The original application would have, among other things, deleted any reference to a waiting period before rod position verification after rod motion.
Because individual rod position indication is subject to thermal transients, it is important that thermal equilibrium be achieved before rod position verification at power levels below 50 percent. In their May 22, 1989
'etter, the licensee opted to include a footnote to Surveillance Requirements 4.1.3.4 and 4.1.3.5 to allow a one-hour thermal soak period before rod position verification to allow thermal equilibrium to be reached at powers below 50 percent. Also, during the soak time rod motion would be limited to six steps absolute. For powers above 50 percent, rod motion is expected to be small and willnot induce significant thermal transients, In the initialapplication the licensee had determined that the proposed change did not constitute a significant hazards consideration. The staff reviewed the licensee's analysis and concurred with the licensee's determination that the proposed amendment did not involve a significant hazards consideration. The staff had proposed to determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration [54 FR 1024 dated January 11, 1989].
The licensee has reviewed the original Significant Hazards Consideration and determined: The proposed changes do not affect the previously submitted Significant Hazards Consideration.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and concurs with the licensee's determination that the proposed amendment change 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.,js>~
Local Public Document Room location: Salem Free Public Library, 112 West Broadway, Salem. New Jersey 08079 AttorneyforlicenseeMark J.
Wet terhahn. Esquire, Conner and Wetterhahn, Suite 1050, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20008 NRC Project Director: Walter R.
Butler Tennessee Valley Authority, Dockets Nos. 50-259, 50-280 and 50-298, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama Date ofamendment requests: June 20, 1989, as supplemented by letter ofJuly 25, 1989 (TS 271)
Description ofamendment requests:
The proposed changes would delete Technical Specification (TS) 3.10.B.1.b.2 and 3.10.B.1.3 which currently allow reactivity additions without continuous core monitoring. Other proposed changes would correct certain identified deficiencies, thereby, resulting in more conservative controls during fuel load and bringing the Browne Ferry TS into consistency with the staffs guidance in the Standard Technical Specifications for BoilingWater Reactors (NUREG-0123).
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 of no significant hazards consideration. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 10 CFR 50.92, the licensee has perfor'med and provided the followinganalysis:
- 1. This proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The design basis accident dwing core alterations is the dropping of a fuel assembly.
Since these changes increase the monitoring requirements for core alterations and there is no new fuel handling activity introduced that was noi previously allowed by the current technical specifications, there is no increase in the probability or consequence of the dropped assembly accident. These changes do not increase the probability or consequences of a control rod removal error or a fuel rod assembly insertion error. There is no increased probability or consequences of an accidental reactivity insertion or an inadvertent criticality.
- z. This proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accid. d irom any previously evaluated.
These TS changes result in improved monitoring requirement during core alterations that would add reactivity. There are no new activities required during core alterations due to these proposed changes which could Introduce any new or different accident. The deletion of the iwo options of loading fuel without continuous SRM
~ I
~
~
4 I I' I
~'
~
~
I
~
I 1
~
I I
I
~ 'l '
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ '
~
t
~
1 I
~
~
~
~ ~
4 4
~
J. r r
~
~ I I ~
t
~
~
~
~ I
~
~
~ '
~ '
I ~
I I
~
I 4 t tl 4'l l ll
~ lte
~
~
~
I
~
~
~
~
~
et
~
~
~
~
I t,
~ ll I
I 1
~
~
~
~
~
1 4'
~
Jt I
I I '
~ '
I
~
~
~ I '
I
~
~
~
~
~
I '
~I:
~
~
I
~
~ I '
~
~
I
~
I I
~
~
1
~
I I
I
~
I
~'
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
I 'I~
~
1
~
1 I
~
I
~ I;
~
I
~
~
I
~
44 4
~
I
~
~
~
~ I I
~
~ '
~
~
~
I
~
~
I
~ I
~
1 I
~ I
~
~
I t
~
~'
~
I
~
I I
~
1
~
1
~
1 I '
~
~
4 ~
~ I
~
~
I '
~
~ I
~
~
Ia I '
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
1
~
4
~
~
~:
~
~
~
1 I
~.,;
~
~
~
~
~
~ '
I I
I~
I'
~
~
I I
I I
~.';
~
1 l
~ fl
~
I ~~:
I 1
~
~
J
~ I ~ '
~
~
~
~ ~
~
t 4
4
~
~
4'4
~
le I
~
~
t
~
~
1 ~
~
~ Il I
~
I
~
~
~
~
I I
~
~
~
~I
~
~
I 4
~ I II'I
~
~
~
~ l.
~
~ ';
~
~
~
t ~
I:
~
1 I
~
I
~
~
~
~
41
~
~
~
~
I
~
~
~
~
~
1
~ ~ 4
~
~
I '
I 1
1
~
~ le I'. I' 1111
~
I '
1 I
I J
~
~
I
~
I
~ '4 ~
~
~
~
~
I ltl ~
1' I '.
~ I'.
~
~
i' I,I
~
la
~
\\
~
~ '
~ '111 I
I
~ il I
1
~
~ 1 44 ~ I '
wl 4
~
I
~
I
~ ~,
~
I .,14.11
~
~
I
~
~
~
I I '
ll
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
t II ~ I
~
I
~
~
~ I
~ ~
~,
~
1
~
el
~
I I
~
't g'\\1
~ t:
~
~
I
~
I I ~:
I 1
~ 1'.
~
~I 1
~
~
~
II
~ ll I I
~ '
I et
~
'I ll
~ I
.I
~. i
~
~
~ I I '
I 14
~
~
~
~
1 I
~
~
I
~
1
~ \\
~
~
~,
I
~
1 44
~
~
II
~
4 1
~
'I
~
~
1
~
~ '
'I 1
1
~
~
~,
alit
~
~ '
~
\\
4
~
~ '
I
~
I;;
I
~
4 I I '
l 1 ~
~ '
~I I
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
I
~ II
~ 1 ~
~
1 I ~
~
~
~ ~
~
I I
~ '
~ '
41 1,
~'
l
~ I I I
~ 4 I
~
11:I I
I ~:
~
41: ~:
11 tel 1
~
44
~
11 l.
~
I
~
~ 11 I ~ I '
1
~ 1
. t..
~
1:
a ll. '
~
~ 1
~
,'4
~ ','
~ I
~
~
~
~ '
~
I '
~
II '
~ I; t
11
~.
~
~
1..
~
I
~
~
~
I 4
~
~
11 I
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
'4
~
~
~
. I
~
~
I ~ Ill
~
~
~
~
~
~
4 ~ '
~
1
~
~
It 1 I ', I, I
. ~
~
~
1
~.
~
~ I,
~
1,
~
I ~ 1 I
1 ~
I I I
~
~
~
~
~
~
I '
I
~ I 11
~ I
~
I
~
I ~
~
~ lt '
~
~
~
~
la
~ I
~
I I I
'I
~
~
4
~
~
~
I
~ I I
~
~
I
~
~
~
I ~
~ I~
~
I'l 4
~
~
I I
~
I I
I
~
~
I
~
I
~
~ ';
~
~
~ I
~ 4
~
I 4
~'l '
~
~
~
~
1 I Jr 1
I' 4
I.
~ '
~
~
~ '
~ ~
~
~ I
~
~
~
It 4
~ l.'
I
~ I
~ I I 4 '
~
~
~ l
~
~
~
I '
1
~
~I
~ I ~
~
t
~
I ',
I ~
'I
~
I
~ ~
~
~
~
~';
~
~
~
~ t
~
~
~
~
~
~ll 4
~lit I
It
~
~
~ I
~ I
~
~
~
~
~
~
' ll 1 ~ I ~
~
~
~
~
11 I
~
~
~ I
~
1 rl
~
~
~
~ I I
44 I::i.
e 41
- I
~
I I Ii
~
~
I
~ I 1 ~
I I,'I'
~
1
~
~
~ 4 I t
~
~
~
~
~ I ~
~ I
~
1
~
I
~
I
~
1
~
~ '
~
4 I
~ I I
I l. ~
~, I, I
~
~
4 t
I 4
~
~
~
t
~
~, ~
I ~
I
~
~
. tl ~.
~4 I I Htt 4
~ 1 4
~
~
I I
~
~
I' I
I i
~
~
1
~.:
I
~
ll
~'l 1
~
~
~ I' II '
I I
~
~
~
~
~
~
'44 I
~
I
~
~ ~ I I
~ i t4 I '
~
~
~ ll
~ 'l I
~
4 I
4
~
~
I
~ I '
~
1 I I
~
~ l '
~ 4 I
t
~',
~
~
I
~
~
~
~
I
~ t '
I I
1 ~ I
~
~ ':
t
~
~
~
1 '
I
~ I
~ '
~
~
4 ~
~
I
~
~
~
I,".
~
~
~ tl I
~
~ 'tI I
~'
~
~
~ I
~
~
1 ~
I I
111
~
I
~
~
~
~
~
~
l~
~
~
~
~
~ '
I
~ '
~
~
~
~
~ I I 'l ~
ll '
ll '
~'
' I;
~
1 ~
I 4
~
4 ~ t
~
~ I f
~
~
~
~
~
~
1
~
~ lect
~
~
~ I ~ ~ ~'l
~
~ '
Itl ~ A~
Nt Jfl
~
~';
~
ll 14 ~ I
~
~
~
~ 'l 1
1
~
4 I
~
~
~
1 ~
I I ~
I~
.. ~
~ I
~ ~
~
ll
~
~ 'I
'4
~
Fedezai R
oL 54, No. 16Z / Wednesday, August considered as patt of the amendment request.
Basis forProposed¹ Significant Hazards Consideration Determination:
The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facilityinvolves no significant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facflity in accordance with a proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or'onsequences ofan accident previously evaluated; (2) Create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluatedor (3)
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The licensee has determined and the staff agrees, that the requested amendment per 10 CFR 5092 does not:
(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the equipment installed willnot provide
'nput to any safety systems relied upon in the licensing bases accident analyses.
The change in action statements does not sfgniTicantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the redundant APRM, IRM, and SRM monitors presently in use willbe available should the wide range monitors be declared inoperable.
(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident than previously evaluated because the equipment provides monitoring only and merely provides another display that indicates neutron fluxor power levels in addition to the existing devices currently relied upon. The change in action statements does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident because the equipment provides a monitoring function only and has adequate redundancy with the existing APRM, IRM. and SRM monitors so that no new or different kind of
'accident is credible.
(3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because no safety margins are affected. This wide range monitoring equipment provides a passive monitoring function only and is not part of any plant safety related system. thus safety margins willnot be affected. The change in action statements does not involve a significant reduction in margin of safety because the existing redundant monitors provide adequate backup given the remote possibility that both wide range monitors become inoperable.
Based on the above considerations the Commission proposes to determine that
'the requested change to the WNP-2 Technical Spec(fications involves no significant hazards considerations.
Local Public Document Boom location: Richland City Library, Swift and Northgate Streets, Richland, Washington 99352.
~
Attorneys forlicensees: Nicholas S.
Reynolds, Esq., Bishop, Cook Purcell and Reynolds, 'l400 LStreet, NW.,
Washington. DC 20005-3502 and G.F Doupe, Esq,. Washington Public Power Supply System, P.O. Box 968, 3000 George Washington Way, Richland, Washington 99352.
NBCProject Director. George W.
Knighton Yankee-Rowe Nuclear Power Corporation, Docket No. 50429, Yankee-Rowe Nuclear Power Station, Bolton, Massachusetts Date ofamendment request. July 24.
1989 Description ofamendment request:
The proposed amendment consists of two proposed changes: (1) The proposed amendment modifes Table 32 1 of Technical Specification 3.2.4 to substitute a limiton the operating loop average temperature for the current limit on cold leg temperature. The proposed average temperature limitwillallow greater operationa) flexibilityduring part-load operation and willmaintain DNB margins to be bounded by full
'power conditions. (2) The proposed amendment removes the word "Exxon" from the last paragraph ofTechnical Speqifica tion Base 3/4.2A.
Basis forproposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a
. facilityinvolves no significant hazards considerations ifoperation of the facility in accordance with a proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or 'different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The licensee has evaluated the proposed amendment against the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 and has determined the followingfor the first proposed change:
(1) An increase in temperature willaot increase the probability of an accident. The main steam iiae break Is the oaiy licensing analysis affected by the change. The reanalysis of this event has shown that the consequences remain acceptable. Therefore, there Is not a digalticsat Increase Ia tbe probability or coazequeacea of a prevtoully analyzed event.
(2) An hcreaze fa temperature wiIIaot result Io4 aew fattzze mecbaauaa whkb could initiate an acctdeat. Therefore. the proposed change willaat create the possibility ofa new or ditfereut type of accident from any previously, analyzed.
(3) The steady-state DNBRmargfn has been evaluated at part. load conditions with the increaled cold Ieg temperatures allowed by this change. The DNB performance at reduced load h bounded by the limitingfull power coadIIIoa. The transient IIcensiag analyses were also evaluated, with the main steam line break being the only affected event. Reanalysis of this transient has showa that the results wiQ remain acceptable.
Tbcrefare, this change willaot result Ia e sigaIIIcaat decrease in safety margins.
For the second proposed change: This change is editorial in nature and would not:
(1) Involve a stgaiGcaat fncrease ia the probability or consequences of an accident prev!ousiy analyzed.
(2) Create the possibility ofa new or different kind ofaccident from any previously analyzed.
(3) Involve a slgaiIIcaat reduciioa In a margin ofsafety.
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 significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main Street. Brattleboro, Vermont 05301.
AttorneyforLicensee: John A. Ritsher, Ropes and Gray, 225 Franklin Street, Boston. Massachusetts 02110.
NBCProject Director, Richard H.
Wessman PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED NOTICES OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTSTO OPERATING LICENSES ANDPROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANTHAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION ANDOPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The followingnotices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances.
They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments
Issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on the day and
S5114 0'ederal Register / Vol. 54, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 1989 / Notices page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period of the'original notice,'h1ladelphia.Electric Company, PubHc Service Electric and Gas Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company, and AtlanticCity Electric Company, Docket Nos. M-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos.
2 and 3, York County, Pennsylvania Date ofamendment request. August 28, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendment request: This amendment revises the Technical Specification Limiting
'onditions for Operations (LCO) and Surveillance Requirements (SRs) for the Containment Cooling System (CCS) in TS 3/4kB and would revise related requirements for diesel generator (DG) testing in TS 3/4.5Z and the associated Bases.
Date ofpvblicatiari ofindividual.
noticein Federal Register. July 28, 1989 (54 FR 31395)
Expiration date ofindividualnotice:
August 28, 1S89 LocalPublic Document'Room, location: Government Publications Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17128.
VirginiaElectric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 6MS8 and 50439, North Anna Power Station, Units No; 1 and No.
2, Louisa County, Virginia Date afamendment request: July 12, 1989. as supplemented July 26, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendment request: The proposed amendments would revise the North Anna Units 1.
and 2 Technical Specifications by revising the definition of slave relay testing and by clarifying the test requirements for Engineered Safeguards Features (ESF) slave relays.
Date ofpublication ofr'rrdividual
'oticein Federal Register. August 9, 1989 (54 FR 32729)
'xpr'ration date ofindividualnotice; September 8, 1989 Local Public Document Room location: The Alderman Library, Manuscripts Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF
- AMENDMENTTO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE the period since publication of the last iweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the appHcation compHes with%e standards and ments oftire:AtoinicEnergy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rul'es and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations.fn 10 CFR. Chapter I,,which are set forth in the Hcense amendment.
Notice of Consideration ofIssuance of Amendment to FaciHty 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 S1.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact sta'tement or.environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments, Ifthe Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances
'rovision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
'or further"details with respect'to.the ection see (1) the applications for amendments, (2) the amendments, and (3) the Commission's related letters, SafetyEvaluations'and/or Environmental Assessments as indicated. Allof these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 LStreet, NW
'ashington, DC, and at the local public document rooms for the particular faciHtfes involved. A copy ofitems (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U,S. Nuclear
'egulatory Commission; Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Director, Division ofReactor Projects.
Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 6M54 and 6M55, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, IIHnois; Docket Nos. SM56 and 6M57, Braidwood Station, Unit Nos, 1 and 2, WillCounty, Illinois Date ofapplication foramendments:
May 22, 1989 Briefdescriptr'on ofamendments:
These amendments modify Technical Specification S.M to allow the use of hafnium, or silver-indium-cadmium, or a combination ofboth, as the absorber material in the rod control cluster assembH'es.
~
.,'Date ofissu'ari cer July 17, 1989
'ffective'dater July 17, 1S89 Ament5nent Nos,': 30'for Byron and 19 forBraidwood' Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37, NPF~, NPF-72, and NPF-77. The amendments revised the Technical Specification.
Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register, June 28, 1989 (54 FR 27224). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 17, 1989.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location: For Byron Station, the Rockford Public Library, 215 N. Wyman Street, Rockford, Illinois 61101; for Braidwood Station, the Wilmington Township Public Library, 201 S.
Kankakee Street, Wllmington, Illinois 60481.
Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos,60-295 and 50404, Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and
? Lake County, IHInois Date ofapplication foramendment:
June 13, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendment:
These amendments modify Sections 4.0.3 and 4.0.4, General Surveillance Requirements, ofthe Technical Specification's for.Zion Station. In.-
addition Section 3.3.1$, Relief Valves, is revised to include exception to General Linuting Condition 3.0.4.
Date ofissuance: August 1, 1989 Effective date: August 1, 1S89 Amendments Nos,: 117, 106 FacilityOperating License Na. DPR-
- 39. Ameiidment revised the.Technical Specifications.
Data ofinitialnoticain Federal Register, June 28. 1989 (54 FR 27225). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in.a Safety Evaluation dated August 1, 1989.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No LocalPublic Document Room location: Vlfaukegan Public Library, 128 N.'County Street, Waukegan, Illinois 60085.
Consumers Power Company, Docket No.
50-155, Big Rock Point Plant, Charlevoix County, Michigan Date ofapplication foramendment:
February 8, 1987 as supplemented November 2, 1987.
Briefdescription ofamendment: Thh amendment modifies paragraph 2.C(5) of the license to require compHance with the amended for a "caH-in" program for oif-'duty guards from their residences, This Plan was amended to conform to the requirements of10 CFR 73.55.
Date of'issuapce:, July 2L.1989 Effective dater July 28', 1989 Amendment No.r 98
Fecferal'aglitter oL 64, No. 162'/tWednestfay, August;
%98$ i/ Natfchs:
Facility Operadng License No. DPR<.
The amendm'ent revises the Technical Specifications.
Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. October 19, 1988 (53 FR 40983).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 1989.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location: North Central Michigan College, 1515 Howard Street, Petoskey, Michigan 49770.
Consumers Power Company, Docket No.
50-155, Big Rock Point Plant, Charlevoix County, Michigan Date ofopplication foramendment:
May 25. 1989 and supplemented on June 30, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendment: This amendment revises Section 3.7(d), (e) and (I) to depict the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J and NUREG-0123, Standard Techncal Speciflications for General Electric BoilingWater Reactors and to remove the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> duration requirement to reduce the impact ofdiurnal effects by using an NRC approved "Total Time" or Point-to-Point method described in ANSI N45.4-1972 and Bechtel Topical Report BN-TOP-1, Rev. 1.
Date ofissuance: July 31, 1989 Effective date: July 31, 1989 Amendment No,'9 II Facility Operating License No. DPR-8.
The amendment revises the Technical Specifications.
Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. June 28, 1S89 (54 FR 27227). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 1989.
¹ significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
LocolPublic Document Room location: North Central Michigan College, 1515 Howard Street, Petoskey.
Michigan 49770.
Duquesne Light Company, Docket No.
5M12, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2, Shippingport, Pennsylvania Date ofapplication foramendment:
August 11, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment revises the supplemental leak collection and release system (SLCRS) flowrate from 59,000 <<fm to 57,000 cfm, reflecting an approved change to the design basis of the SLCRS.
This is a partial response to the licensee's application.
Date ofissuance: August 2, 1989 Effective date: August 2, 1S89 Amendment No. 19 FaqililyOperating License Na NPF-
- 78. Amendment revised the Technical Spedfications.
Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Reghiter. October 5. 1988 (53 FR 39168).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 2, 1989.
No significant hazards consideration comments recei vedi No LocalPublic Document Room location: B.F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.
Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Munidpal Electric Authorityof Georgia, City ofDalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 5M24 and 5M25, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia Date ofapplication foramendments:.
April5, 1S89-Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments modified the Technical Specifications to delete footnotes that are.no longer applicable.
Date ofissuance: August 8, 1989 Effective date: August 8, 1989 Amendment Nos.: 21 and 2 FacilityOperating License Nas. NPF-88 and NPFNIt Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register: May 17, 1989 (54 FR 21308). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 8, 1989.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Publid Document Room location: Burke County Library, 412 Fourth Street, Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Munidpal Electric Authorityof Georgia, City ofDalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 5M24 and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia Date ofapplication foramendments:
April8, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments modified Technical Specification 4.5.2.h.1)b) to increase for Unit 1 the maximum total charging pump flowrate with a single pump running:
Date ofissuance: August 8, 1989 Effective date: August 8, 1989 Amendment Nos, 22 and 3 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-88 and NPF-81t Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date ofinitialnoticein Federal'egister.
May 31, 1989 (54 FR 23314). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 8, 1989.
4 Nosignificant hazards consideration comments received: No, LocalPublic Document Room lobation: Burke County Library, 412 Fourth'Street, Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Houston Lighting 8i Power Company, City PubHc Service Board of San Antonio, Central Power and Light Company, City of Austin, Texas, Docket Nos. 5M98 and 5M99, South Texas Pro)ect, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas Date ofamendment request: June 1, 1989
, Briefdescription ofamendments: The proposed changes allow the use ofboth hafnium (Hi) and silver-indium-cadmium (Ag-In-Cd) design Rod Cluster Control Assemblies (RCCA) within the
- core, Date ofissuance: July 31, 1989 Effective date: July 31, 1989 Amendment Nos.: 10 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-78 and NPF~. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.
Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. June 28, 1989 (54 FR 27229). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 1989.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
LocalPublic Document Rooms Location: Wharton County Junior College, J, M. Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton. Texas 77488 and Austin Public Library. 810 Guadalupe Street. Austin. Texas 78701 IllinoisPower Company, Docket No, 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois Date ofapplication foramendment:
May 18, 1S88 Description ofamendment request:
The change revised the setpoint requir'ement for the control rod scram accumulator low pressure alarm.
Date ofissuance: August 4, 1989 Effective date: August 4, 1989 Amendment No, 24 Facility Operating License Na. NPF-
- 82. The amendment revised the Technical Specifications, Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. December 14, 1988 (53 FR'0330).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 4, 1989.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No
'ocal Public Document Roam locotion: The Vespasian Warner Public
'3S116 Fideral-Relies'I Vol; 54, No., 182 / Wednesday, August 2$, ~~ I Nohces Library. 120 West Johnson Street.
Clinton, Illinois81727.
Iowa Electric Light and Powe,'Cempany,
~
Docket No. SMS1, Duane Arnold Enexgy, Center, Linn County, Iowa Date ofapplication for amendment:
April14, 1989
'rief description ofamendment: The amendment xevisecf the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC)Facility Operating License No. DPR<9.
extending the DAEC Integrated Plan.for 2 years beyond the current expiration date ofMay 3, 1989.
Date ofissuance: August 8, 1S89 Effectivedata August L 1988 Amendment Nai 161 Facility. Operating License Na.'DPR-4R Amendment revised the license.
Date ofinitialrxaticein Federal Regis! er. June 28. 1989 (54 FR 27231). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendm'ent is'contained in a Safety',
Evaluation dated August 8, 1989.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No..
LocalPublic Document Room location: Cedar Rapids Public Librazy, 500 First Street, S.E Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401.
Power Authority ofthe State of New York, Docket No.~, James A.
Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, NewYork Dote ofapplicatian foramendmeat:
May 27,3988 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment corrects several editoriaL typographicaL and other minor erzors.
Date afissuanca july 19, 1888 Effectivedata July 19,1889 Amendment No.: 134 FacilityOperating License Na DPR-59i Amendment'revised the Technical
'peciQcaUon.
~
Dale ofinitialrtoticein Federal Register. April19. 1989 (54 FR 15835).
The Commission's related evatuiUon of the amendment is contained in a Safety EvaluaUon dated July 19. 1S89.
~
Na sigruficant hazards consideration commentsreceivedi No Local Public Document Room location: PenQeld Library, State University College ofOswego, Oswego, New York.
. PubHc Service Elastic dr Gas Company, Docket No. 6M54, Hops Creek Generating StaUon, Salem County, New Jersey Date ofopplicatioriforamendment..
May 5. 1989 Brz'efdescriptr'an ofamendment: The amendment requestinczeases the Technical SpeciQcaUotx channel functional test surveillance intezvah for various'Control Rod Block instrumentation'in accordance with General Electric Company Licensing Topical Report NEDC40851P-A.
Supplement 1.
Date ofissuancei July 28, 1989 Effective data July 28, 1989 and shall be implemented within60 days of issuance.
Amendment No. 29 FacilityOperating Licensb Na NPF-
- 57. This amendment revised the Technical SpeciQcations.
Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. June 14, 1989 (54 FR 25376). The Cohunission's related evaluation ofthe amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated'July 28, 1989.
¹ significant hazards considerxrtian comments received: No LocalPublic Document Room locatiok PennsviHe Public Lib'raxy 190 '
S. Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey, 08070 PubHc'Service Electric h Gas Company, Docket Nos. 50-272 and QMXI,Salem
'enerating'StaUon, UnitNos. 1 and'2 Salem County, New Jersey Date ofapplication foramendmeatsi
'uly
- 15. 1988 and supplemented by letters dated April25, 1989 and May24, 1989.
Briefdescriptiaa ofamendments:
These amendments deleted the organizaUon charts. Figures 62-1 and 624 and replaced them withmore, general ozganizathmal requirenxents.
Date ofissuance July 31. 1969 Effective date: Units 1 and 2. as of the date ofissuance to be implemented within45 days ofthe date ofIssuance.
Amendment Nos. 98 and 76
.FacilityOperating License Nos. DPR 70 and DPR-75. These amendments revised the Technical SpeciQcaUons..
Date ofinitialnotice in Fedezal Register. May 31. 1S89 (54 FR 23322). The Commission's related evatuaUon oftha amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 1989, No significant hazards consideration comments receivedi No Local Public Docurruuxt Room location. Salem Free Public Librazy, 112 West Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 06079 South Carolina Electric 5 Gas Company, South CaroHna PubHc Service Authority, Docket No. 50-385, VixgQ C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, FsIxfield County, South CaroHna Date ofapplicatian foramendment:
August 24. 1988 Briefdescription ofameridment: The, amendnlnt modiQes the value for the average electrotype.temperature and the average battery capacity.
Date ofissuancer August 'I, 1MS Effec&e date'ugust 7 1989 Amendment Na 80 Facility Operating License No. NPF-
- 12. Amendment revises the Technical SpeciQcations.
Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. May 3, 1S89 (54 FR 18959). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 7. 1989 No sigruJicaat hazards consideration comments received: No Local Public Document Boom location: Fairfield County Library, Garden and Washington Streets.
Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180.
Sooth Carolina Electri 5 Gas Company, South CaroHna Public Service Authority,
'ocket No. 50495, VirgilC. Summer Nude'tation, Unit.No. 1, Faizfield
, South ~1hz Date ofapplication foramendment May 22, i869 Briefdescription ofamendmentiThis Amendment allows, in the case ofa missed surveillance requirement, delaying compliance with the Action Statement for a period up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to permit the completion ofthe s'urveHlance when the allowed outage time limitsof the Action Statement are less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and establishes as the starting time of the noncompHance that.
time when itis discovered that the Surveillance Requirement has not been performed. This Amendment also permits passage through oito Operational Conditions as required in order to comply with the A'ction Statements.
Date ofr'ssuance: August 8, 1969 Effective data August 8, 1989 Amendment No. 81 Facility Operrrting License No. NPF-
- 12. Amendment revises the Technical SpeciQcaUons.
Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register July 12, 1989 (54 FR 29411). The Commission's related evaluation ofthe amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 8; 1989. The amendment was inadvertently issued before expiration of the comment period. However. no comments or requests for hearing were received within the period for such comments or regues ts.
Na significant hazards consideration commenS recei vedi No Local Public Document Roam location: FatzQeld Copnty Library,.
Garden and Washington Streets.
Winnsboro, South. Carolina 29180.
Federal Reg(ster /
'4, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23
/.Notices.'ennessee Valley Authority, Dockets Nos. 50-259, 50-260 and 50-296, Browne Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units '1, 2 and 3, Lhnestone County. Alabama Date ofapplication foramendments:
January 13, 1989 (TS 256)
Briefdescription ofamendments: The proposed changes would delete certain surveillance testing requirements on redundant but independent systems when a system is declared inoperable and a requirement to verify alignment of valves in the injection/safety related flowpaths.
Date ofissuance: August 2, 1S89 Effective date: August 2, 1989 Amendments Nos, 169, 169, 140 Facility Operating Licenses Nos.
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. May 17, 1989 (54 FR 21316), The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 2, 1989.
No significant hazards consideration, comments received: No LocalPublic Document Room location: Athens Public Library, South Street, Athens, Alabama 35811.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Dockets Nos. M-259, 50-260 and 50-2SB, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama Date ofapplication for amendments:
May 15, 1989 (TS 270)
Briefdescription ofamendments: This amendment corrects Technical
'pecification Surveillance Requirement 4.6.A.3 to comply with 10 CFR 50, Appendix H and revises the Bases section to reflect the specimen withdrawal program agreed upon by TVAand the NRC.
Date ofissuance: August 3, 1989 Effective date: August 3, 1989 Amendments Nos, 170. 170, 141 Facility Operating Licenses Nos.
DPR43, DPR-52 and DPR-68:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. June 14. 1989 (54 FR 25379). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 3, 1S89.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No Local Public Document Room location: Athens Public Library, South Street, Athens, Alabama 35811, Tennessee VaHey AuthorityDocket Nos.
6M'nd SM28, Sequoyah Nuclear Plan< Units 1 and 4 Hamflton County, Tenilessee
'ate ofapplication foramendments:
March 27. 1989 (TS 88-27)
Briefdescription ofamendments: The amendments revise the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Speciflcations. The changes increase the base current value for the containment air return fans, in Surveillance Requirement 4.6.5.6, from 28 amperes to 32 amperes. The band for an acceptable current (i.e., 277.5 amperes) is not being changed.
Dote ofissuance: July 31, 1989 Effective date: July 31, 1989 Amendment Nos.: 121, 110 Facility Operating Licenses Nos.
DPR 77 and DPR-79. Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. April19, 1989 (54 FR 15838).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 1989.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No LocalPublic Document Room location: Chattanooga-Hamilton County Library, 1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402.
Tennessee ValleyAuthority, Docket Nos. SM27 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Date ofapplication foramendments:
December 22, 1988 (TS 88-34)
Briefdescription ofamendments: The
.amendments modify the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS). The changes remove inappropriate testing requirements associated with the auxiliary building gas treatment system (ABGTS) and add a new requirement on the automatic isolation of the auxiliary building ventilation exhaust. Surveillance requirements for ABGTS activation exist in Section 7. "Plant Systems," and Section 9. "Refueling Operations," of the TS. The ABGTS test requirement associated.yrith the auxiliary building ventilation monitoring system (ABVMS) was deleted from both Section 7 and Section 9. The ABGTS test requirement associated with a Phase A containment isolation signal was deleted from Section 9 but remains in Section 7. The
~
ABGTS test requirement associated with the high radiation signal from the spent fuel pool monitors was deleted from Section 7 but remains in Section 9.
A new requirement was added to Table 4.3.9 of Specification 3.3.3.10, "Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Monitoring,"to demonstrate automatic isolation of the auxiliary building ventilation exhaust any time the ABVMS(radiation monitor) indicates measured levels above the alarm/trip..
setpoint. The requirement was in Sections 1 and 9 as part of the ABGTS actuation test for a high radiation signal from the ABVMSbut was deleted. Also, two typographical errors in the Unit 1 Speciflcation 32.3.10 have been corrected.
Date ofissuance: August 3, 1989 Effective date: August 3, 1989 Amendment Nos.: 122, 111 Facility Operating Licenses Nos.
DPR-77 and DPR-7R Amendments revised the Technical Speciflcations.
Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. February 8, 1989 (54 FR 8212).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 3, 1989..
No significant hazards consideration comments receivedi No Local Public Document Room
'ocation:
Chattanooga-Hamilton County Library,'001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 3740?
Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Docket No, 50-346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, duhio Date ofapplication foramendment:
January 15, 1988 Briefdescri ption ofamendment.'his amendment deleted Sections 3/4.3.3.7, Chlorine Detection Systems, from Appendix A, Technical Specifications, and Section 3/4.3.3.7 from the Bases.
The index in Appendix Ahas also been updated to reflect this deletion.
Date ofissuance: August 4, 1989, Effective date: August 4, 1989 Amendment No. 134 Facility Operating License Na. NPF-3.
Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.
Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register. June 28, 1989 (54 FR 27241). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 4, 1989.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No
~
Local Public Document Room locotion: University ofToledo Library, Documents Department, 2801 Bancroft Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 43MB.
~
~
~
A
~
~
~
~
~ I
~ I
~ '
'1 o
~
~
I I
~
s
~
'I
~
I
~
~ 'i~
s w
~ ~
~
A I
~
~
~
~
s ~
~ '
I
~
1 s
I
' I;I ~
I W
i Si st ~
I Ai e
is
~ 'e I
tsetse I
~
eo I >>I 11
~
tl I I I '
I I' I .I
~o 1'
~
~
~ ol
~
1
~
~ I
~ '
~
~
~
~
~
I I
I I
I I I
~
~
~
Ii I
~
~
~
~
I
~
I
~
~
~
~
r ~ i
~ '
I I
I I
I I
~ '
~ is
~
t i i
~ t
~
~
~
J t '
I I
I Ji i
~ ss r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ ie
~
~
~ I:
~
~
~
~ Il '
~ I I
~
I I
~
~
~
I I
~
~
~
I
~
I
~
I
~ '
I
~
~ I '
ll '
~
~
I I
~
~
~
I
~
I J
~
~
I I
t is I
I
~
I t
s I
~
~
~ I I
I I
~'l ~
I
~
~
~
~
I
\\ ~ '
~
ss I r
~ ~:
~
~
~
1 I
r
I '
I~:
i
~
~I'
~ ~:
III ~
I
~
~I I
I
~
s ss s
I
~
~ is
~
~
s '
ts:
~
~;
~
I I
~
~ '
I I ~ '
I
~
~
I ':
\\
I I
~
~
~
~
~
I '
I
~
I
~
~
~
~
I I ~ '
~
~
~
~
II
~
~
~
I
~
~
~
~
I '
~
~
~
~
I
~
si t
I '
~
~
~
I' ll
~ el i I
~
~ ~
I t
~
~
~
~
I
- I
~
I J
~
~
~
li '
I ~I '
~ 'l \\
~ '
~
~ >.
~
II '
J
~
iI S 'i I
t
~
I ~ '
~ I '
I t
I I
~
I I
~
I J'
's I
~ ee
'i
~
11
~ 1
..1
~
I
~ ';: I
~
~
I
~ I r
~
~ t
~
~o ~
~
~ I '
ll '
l I
~ I
~ '
~
I s
~ its 'I
r
~
~
~
~ '
I
~ II I
~
I
~ ':
I ' I: ~
1
~
~
~ I
~ I
~
~ I Io ~ Ii
~ I I
~
I '
~
~
~
~
I I I ~
~
I
~
~
~
I ':
~
~
I
~
I '
~
~
~
I
~
~
I
~
~
~
t J
~
'i is
~
~
~
I I
~'
I
~
J
~
~ I I
~
~
~; ~,
I I
II
~ ;
~
Iii '
8 I
~ '
~
~
~
~
~
~ I
~
~
I 'II
~ il
~
I
~
I II
~
~:
A
~ t,
~ i lss I
~
I
~
~
I
~ I I
~ ~
s
~
Ji isr
~ ii
~
~ ~
~
I 1 I
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~
ii~
~
I I
I S
~ ie I
Wo!I itll~
1 P,
I I
~
I
~
I ~
~ '
Is I
si
~ I I Ie
~
I
~
I '
~
~
~ I
~
I
~
t
~
~ ~ ~
Ji r
~ I ~
s li It
~
I A
~
Ii
~
I
~
I
~
I
~
~ s t
~ ~;
~
~
~
~ ~
~
I
~
~ I
~
~ I I
~
li I
I I i
~
~
I I
~
~
I ll I i
~
I tl '
~
~
I rr
~ I 'sit'o, rir r
I I
~ I i
~
~ I I'i I
~ Its el r;
~ s! I II I s
se i
s II
~ I
~ I '
I
~
~
~
~.'::
1
~ '
I
~ 'I~
~\\
~
I I t
~
~ e '
~
~
I II '
~
~
~ '
~ '
~
~ 'l
~
We 4 tlr I
~:
~ 'l ':
I '
~ '
I I 't',
~
i I
~
~
~ I
~ I
~
S
~
~
~ tl
Si te I
~
~
I I
I I
~ '
I
~ I
~
~
I '
I
~ ii I ~
~
et
~
~
~ 'I I's s
~
~
~
J t I,
~
~
~
~ ';
~
I
~
I I
I I
~
I
~
~
t le
~
~
J
~
I t I
~
~
~o is t
I
~ I
~
I
~ I I
~ I ~ '
~
~
~
~ I
~
~
~ I
~
~
ss I
~
i ~
J
~
t
~
i'
~ s Jr sr
~
~
~
r
~
I ~
1 '
~ II
~
~
I
~
~
Ii I
I';
~
1
~ I
~ '
~
~
~ I ':
~
I
~ 11
~'
I I '
~
~
1 I '
~
~
~
~ 1
~
~
~ I 11
~ I
~
~
~
~ rt
~
I
~
~
I 'to
~
~
~
~
~
~
s J
~
~
i
~
I
~
~
i ~
t '
1 ~ a
~
I I I
~
~
~
~
I
~
~
~
' 'l
~1
~ 'i.
~
~ '
~ I iol est I
il s
It>s:
+>>1 I
~
~
I
- I i.
sss I
~
It
~
i ~
I W'I ti si'I J
~
t
~
~
ss
~ It
. 54. No. MR f Nednes8ay, Aagust 889 / Notfces SSXX9 Sixteenth Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
WolfCreek Nuclear Operathig Corporation, Docket No. 50~ Wolf Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas Dote ofamendment request. March 28, 1988 Briefdescription ofamendment: The current WolfCreek Technical Specifications did not identify actions to be taken ifeither the measured overall integrated containment leakage rate or the measured combined leakage rate for all penetrations and valves subject to Type B and C tests exceed allowable limits when the reactor coolant system temperature is above 200'. The amendment introduced Action statements to be taken iflocal leak rate testing. performed at power, exceeds allowable limits.
Date ofIssuance: August 9, 1989 Effective date: August 9, 1989 Amendment Na,'3 Facility Operating License Na. NPF-
- 42. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.
Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register. August 24, 1988 (S3 FR 32302).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 9, 1989.
Na significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Boom Location: Emporia State University, WilliamAllenWhite Library, 1200 Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas 66801 and Washburn University School of Law Library, Topeka, Kansas 86822 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTTO FACIUTY OPERATING LICENSE ANDHNAL 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 I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was neede4 there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Sunday Notice of Consideration of Issuance ofAmendment and Proposed No Significant Hazards'Consideration Determination and Opportunity for a Hearing. For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local media to provide notice to the public in the area surrounding a licensee's facilityof the licensee's application and of the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of
'the public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption ofoperation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may n'ot have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no tiignificanthazards determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. Ifthere has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity forpublic 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 from any person. in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action.
Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR S1.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 5222(b), no eiivironmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. Ifthe Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special drapnstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment.
it fs so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License. and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. Allof these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street. NW., Washington. DC, and at the local public document room for the particular facilityinvolved.
A copy of items (2) and (3) may be'btained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Reactor Projects.
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendments. By September 22, 1989, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facilityoperating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall ba 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 Bled by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, willrule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board willissue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be 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: (2) 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
S5120
~
. ~
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 182 / Wednesday, August 23, 1989 / Notices property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding, and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The. petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of.the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene, Any person who has filed 8 petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prfor 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 liUgated 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 ameridment under consideration. A petiUoner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention willnot be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. and have the opportunity to parUcipate fullyin the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and crosswxamine witnesses.
Since the Commission has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, ifa hearing is requested.
it wfilnot stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is itr effect.
request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filedwith the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch. or may be delivered to the 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) 342%700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the followingmessage addressed to (Prol'ect Director)i petiUoner's name and telephone number. date petiUon was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Acopy'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 officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the
'actors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-
(v) and 2.714(d).
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Docket No, 50-247, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, Westchester County, New York Date ofapplication foramendment:
August 3, 1989, Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment raises the maximum allowed service water system inlet water temperature from 85' to 90' and raises the allowable containment air temperature from 120' to 130',
Date ofissuance: August 7, 1989 Effective dale: August 7, 1989 Amendment No.t 143 FacilityOperating License No. DPR-2tt; Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to
'roposed no significant hazards consideration: No. The Commission'8 related evaluation of the amendment, finding of emergericy circumstances, and final determination of no significant hazards consideration are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 7, 1989.
Local Public Document Room location: White Plains Public Library, 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York 10810.
Power Authority ofThe State ofNew York, Docket No, 50-288, Indian Point Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New York Date ofapplication foramendment:
August 4, 1989 Briefdescription ofamendment: The amendment revises Technical Specification 3 to permit the plant to operate with a service water temperature above 90'.with containment air temperatures up to 130' for up to seven hours before reaching the hot shutdown condition via normal operation procedu'res.
Date ofissuance: August 11, 1989 EFfecttve date: August 11, 1989 Amendment No.t 87 Facility Operating Licenst; Na. DPR-84t Amendment revised the Technical Specifications, Publi'c comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
-,,consideration: No. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment.
consulatlon with the State. and final determination ofno significant hazards consideration are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 11, 1989.
Local Public Document Room location: White Plains Public Library, 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York 10601 Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. Charles M.
Pratt, 10 Columbus Circle. New York New York 10019.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day ofAugust. 1989.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Steven A. Verge, Director. DivisionofReactor Pmj eats-I/II.
OfficeofNuclear Reactor Regulation (Doc. 89-14/29 Filed 8-22-89: 8:45 am]
slLUNO coos Td9041W