ML19327B795
| ML19327B795 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19327B793 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8911130350 | |
| Download: ML19327B795 (1) | |
Text
h p
p>*#fcg C
e h
UNITE D STATE 8
+
i
,[
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
i W A$HING T ON, D. C. 206b6 4
g, e4 t-SAFETY EiALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENY NO.123 TO FACILI*iY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-40 OMAHA PU3LIC POWER DISTRICT FORTCALHOUNSTATI,0LU, NIT _NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50 285 1.0 J NT,RODUCTION tyletterdatedSeptember8,1989,OmahaPublicPowerDistrict(thelicensee) scbmitted an application for an amendment te facility Operating License No.
L CFR-40. This amendment would modify the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1 Techt.ical Specifications to correct an administrative error that was vr.ade when Amendment No. 32 was issued.
2.0 DISCUSSION In Amendment I:o. 37 the licensee receivcd a change to the Surveillance Method
ofTechnicalSpecifIcationPage3-15,Section3.1, Table 3-3, Item 8-Dropped Control Element Assembly Indication. However, in the licensee's subtittal of applicatien for the aner.dr.ient, the page of the Technical Specification denoting its change request in Table 3-3 also inadvertently changed item 12 - Interlocks /
lscletier Valves on Shutdown Cooling Line, to reflect what was in the original issuar.ce of the Technical Specifications. This Itern 12 was modified to alleviate some prcblers the licensee was experiencing. These modifications 5.ere approved by the staff and issued in Amendr.ient No.16.
Therefore, the chenge requested by the licensee is an adn,inistrative change since this change reverts Itern 12 to the exact " Surveillance Method" approved in Amendment No. 16, 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL _,C,0,NSJ DE,gTj 0N The amendment relates to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(gibility ptocedures or requirements. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eli c)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environrental in> pact statement or environ-mental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed rc.anner, and (2) such 6ctivities will be cctducted in compliance with the Cormission's s egulations, ar.d the issuance of the amendment will nct be inimical to the corr.on defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
November 6, 1989 gliggggg p
PNV Principal Contributor:
A. Bournia s