ML19354E691
| ML19354E691 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1990 |
| From: | OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19354E688 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9002010135 | |
| Download: ML19354E691 (15) | |
Text
..;...-..-.....
-. _.........._ ~
.._mo.
.. - e - m.m TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS - FIGURES
.T,A,B),E, pf,CpHTENTS FI'r gE PAGE WHICH u
-TABLP pESCRIPTION
%ttRE.-TARI, F0llDWS 1-1 TNLP Safety Limits 4 Pump Operations...........-..
1-3 1-2 Axial Power Distribution LSSS for 4 Pump Operation...... 3 l 1-3 TMLP LSSS 4 Pump Operation...................
-74 l-S
.q 2-1A
-RCS Press-Temp Limits Heatup.................
N7r 2-(.
2-1B RCS Press-Temp Limits Cooldown................
P=78 1-L 2-3 Predicted Radiation Induced NDTT Shift.............
b7e Z-6 I
2-10 Spent Fuel Pool Region 2 Storage Criteria..........
2-4 PDIL.............................
-tdyg-2-s.3 (2-5 Allowable Peik Linear Heat Rate vs Burnup..........
'P47e 7-55
?-6 LCO for Excore Monitoring of LHR...............
-E-57e-. 2 --53 2-7 LCO for DHB Monitoring.....................
b57,- 2 -5F P-8 Flux Peaking Augmentation Factors........-......
J47e--2 5%
T T
l?-9 F
, 'p and Core Power Limitetions.....
747e '2 53 yy N
1
%s oage humher Shotdd E t
Ist CetslStan& W% o Wr b
AtrcA.
L)C 60)- \\ \\~l?- Wied q
1
, 3 1
1 1
)
viii Amendment flo.116 9002010135 h h s5 PDR ADOCF PDC P
]
1.0 SAFETY LIMITS AND LIMITING SAFETY SYSTEM SETTINGS 1.1 Safety t.imits - Reactor Core (Continued) would cause DNB at a particular core location to the actual heat flux at that location, is indicative of the margin'to DNB.- The minimum value of the DNBR during steady state opera-tion, normal operational transients, and anticipated tran-sients is limited to 1.18.
A DNBR of 1.18 corresponds to a 95% probability at a 95%' confidence level that DNB will not occur, which is considered an appropriate margin to DNB for
- i all operating conditions.(1)
The curves of Figure 1-1 represent the loci of points or re-actor thermal power (either neutron flux instruments or AT in-struments), reactor coolant system pressure,-and cold leg temperature for which the DNBR is 1.18.
The area of safe opera-tion is below these lines.
(p The reactor core safety limits are based-dial pea limit-g ed by.the CEA insertion limits in Sectio and a al-Figure 1-2andatotalunroddedplanarradialpeak[of shapes within the axial power distribution ip lim t
.8.
105 l
The LSSS in Figure 1-3 is based on the assu,. tion tha the un-rodded integrated total radial peak (F ) is 1.86) This peak-l ing factor is slightly higher (more co serva Tv'e) phet-the t
maximum predicted unrodded total radial peak duri g' core life, excluding measurement uncertainty.
[
.Wan Flow maldistribution effects for operation under less than full reactor coolant flow have been evaluated via model test.(2) The flow model data established the maldistribution factors and hot channel inlet temperature for-the thermal analyses that were used to establish the safe operating enve-lopes presented in Figure 1-1.- The reactor protective system is designed to prevent any anticipated combination'of tran-sient conditions for-reactor coolant system temperature,. pres-t sure, and thermal power level that would result in a DNBR of less than 1.18.(J)
'g t'
References 6
(1) USAR, Section 3.6.?
1 (2) USAR, Section 1.4.6
--(3)
L'!", S::ti= 3. G.2
\\-
l
(.
1-2 Amendment No. 8,32,43,47, 79,77,92,117-
- -~...
,,nn-
M 2.0 LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION,
'[
2.10 Reactor Core (Continued)
}
~2.10.4 Power Distribution Limits.(Continued)
(ii)
Be in at least hot standby within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
l.7D (2) Total Intearated Radial Peakina Factor T
'The calculated value deterIined,fromI) power F=F (1+T shall be limited to F i distribution map wit non-ppable CEA's' inserted and with all full length CEA's
.or above the Long Tem Steady State Insertion Limit fo he existing Reactor Coolant Pump combination.
The azi is determined q, is-the measured value hal tilt, T of T at the time q
With 21.8 within 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />s:
(a) Reduce power.to bring power and F within the limits
- of Figure 2-9, withdraw the full Tength CEA's to or beyond the Long Term Steady State Insertion' Limits of Specification 2.10.2(7), and fully-withdraw the NTCEA's,-
-l or (b) Be in at least hot standby.-
/,[
f v.h (3) Total Planar Radial Peakina Fact r The' calculated,vair T define as F T=F
- deterEnedfMm(.1+T')shall.I be limited t 's.
"F *Yshall ap8we'r distribution th'n5Ynon-t ppable CEA's inserted and with all full length CEA's at or ove the Long Term Steady-State Insertion Limit for the ex ting Reactor Coolant Pump combina-t tion.
This determinatio shall be. limited to core planes-l between 15% and 85% of ull. core height inclusive'and shall-exclude regions inf1 nee by grid effects.
The azimuthal tilt, T,isthemeasurefvalueofT at the time F is determined.
q q
xy With F, 21.80 ithin 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />s:
l l
(a) Reduce power to bring power and F T to within the limits of Figure 2-9, withdraw the fu11'i5ngth CEA's to or beyond' the Long Term Steady State. Insertion Limits of Specification 2.10.2(7), and fully withdraw the NTCEA's, or (b) Be in at least hot standby.
2-57a Amendment No. 32,43,47,78,77, 92,I99,117
590 580 L.
570 o
x x
x
\\
li 560 x
s
\\
550 N
\\ 2400 psio E
\\
540 2250 psia s
530
\\
2075 psia u
520
'N 1750 psio -
500 60 70 80 90 100
-110 120 CORE POWER (% OF RATED POWER)
P
= 29.NS1($ + 18.44T - 11240 VAR ig PF(B)
= 1.0 B1100%.
=
.008B +.1.8 50%<B<100%
= 1.4 Bs50%
A1(Y) = -0.35294Y; + 1.08824 Y, s.25 0.57143Y; + 0.875 Y >.25
=
i Therrnal Margin /L0w Pressure LSSS Om0h0 Public P0wer District Figure 4 Pump Operation F0rt C0th0un St0 tion-Unit NO.1 1-3
1 16 i
i
_i i
i i
2 15 UNACCEPTABLE OPERATION h
14.4 KW/Fr
=
14 ACCEPTABLE OPERATION U
s 13 O
d<
I I
12 0
2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 CYCLE AVERAGE BURNUP (MWD /MTU)
Allowable Peak Linear Heat Rate Omaha Public Power District Figure vs. Burnup Fort Calhoun Station-Unit No.1 2-5
i f
110 i
i.
i
[
FdLIMIT FhLIMIT 1
cz:.g 90 a
5 J
d<
80 d5 i
(1.86,75)
(1.92,-75) l-z i
w 1
I l
M 70 l_
l c
w Q-l 1-l I
I 60 1
I I
i.
I i
0 1.65 1.70 1.75 1.80 1.85 1.90 1.95 2.00 2.05-4 l
Fh AND.Fj-j l
FhF;andCorePower OmahaPublicPowerDistrict Figure i
Limitations FortCalhounStation-UnitNo.1 2-9 4
s
,,i_,,
,__,_,.a..u u.,.
a.._
,u,_
p._-,,.
l
. '1
_g t
h p
\\
+
a t
.- {
L l
-l p
[f I
I i
I k
t ATTACHMENT B a
-=
h 3
L
)
-Y 9
l
'4
. b t
-.I1 i
I l
I I
I i
1 I
f i
k
.i i
g eew-w--
w-
==
41-+-e w-e+"eL m-ar-e'-w4 w ww'-wa tr-
+e-ww-
Foit Calhoun Technical Specifications amendments are proposed to reflect changes which are a result of the Cycle 13 core reload analysis.
Table B-1 presents a summary of the proposed Technical Specification changes and an ex)lanation for the changes. Justification for the changes is contained in the attacled Fort Calhoun Cycle 13 Core Reload Evaluation.
TABLE B-1 Explanation for Cycle 13 Technical Specification Chanoes Item tech. Spec.
,_!b.
Pace /Fioure No.
Chance Bang.n.1 1
Page 1-2 Change total unrodded The revised values are lanar radial peak from conservative with respect
.80 to 1.75 and the to the previous values. The unrodded integrated total reduced value will providte radial peak from 1.80 to additional operating 1.70.
margin.
2 Figure 1-3 Replace Figure 1-3 with The gamma term of the the enclosed Figure 1-3.
P ecuation has been cN7nget to reflect an increased Phia term and reducedpowErlofuel design limits on DNBR.
{
3 Figure 2-5 Replace Figure 2-5 with The allowable peak linear the enclosed Figure 2-5.
heat rate LOCA limit has been redaced to provide additional operating /ft is margin.
The 14.4 Kw conservative with respect to the previous value.
4 Figure 2-9 Replace Figure 2-9 with The F T T
and FR limits the enclosed Figure 2-9.
asafdnctionof.powerhave been revised to maintain consistency with changes to items 1 and 5.
5 Page 2-57a Change total unrodded The revised values are planar radial peak from conservative with respect 1.80 to 1.75 and the to the previous values, unrodoed integrated total The reduced values will radial peak from 1.80 to provide additional 1.70.
operating margin.
6 Page 1-2 Change "Section 2-10" to Correction of typographi-
"Section 2.10" in para-cal errors, graph 3, line 2 and change "that" to "than" in paragraph 3, line 7.
TABLEB-1(cont.)
Explanation for Cvele 13 Technical Soecification Chances l
Item Tech. Spec.
_NES Pace /Fioure No.
Chance Reasons 7
Page 2-57a Change " vale" to "value" Correction of a typographi-in2.10.4(3) paragraph 1, cal error.
line 1.
8 Page 1-2 Add"(F I)"onpara-Administrative changes to graph 3,yline 4 following define unrodded planar x
thewords"totalunrodded radial peak and update USAR planar radial peak".
references. Reference (1)
AlsochangeReference(1) currently corresponds to from USAR Section "3.6.7" USAR Section 3.6.6 and to "3.6.6" and delete Reference (3)isnowthe Reference (3)inthe sameasReference(1).
"leferences". As a result, c1ange "less than 1.18 (3)"
to"lessth6n1.18(1)"in paragraph 4, line 10.
l l
i
=-
Description of Amendment Request to Reduce the Allowable Peak Linear Heat Rate j
vs. Burnup Kw/ft Limit The proposed Technical Specification change in Table B-1 corresponding to Item 3 for Technical Specification Figure 2-5 concerns the reduction of the l
allowablepeaklinearheatrate(PLHR)vs.burnupfrom15.22Kw/ftto14.4 Kw/ft.
To bound the allowable fuel mechanical design parameters, an end of cycle reduction in the allowable PLHR was required.
By reducing the allowable PLHR 1
to 14.4 Kw/ft the internal fuel pin pressure at end of cycle will remain less i
than the 1960 psia system pressure utilized in the current LOCA analysis.
The use cf a 14.4 Kw/ft limit is conservative with respect to the previous 15.22 Kw/ft limit.
Basis for No Sionificant Hazards Determination:
This proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration because the operation of Fort Calhoun Station in accordance with this amendment would nots i
1)
Involve a significant increase in the )robability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. This c1ange maintains the validity of the fuel mechanical design evaluation for the Combustion Engineering i
fuel assemblies. The use of the reduced PLHR will prevent the internal pressure in the fuel pins from exceeding the LOCA evaluated value by increasing the operating margin in the fuel pin design. On the basis of the technical safety evaluation, operating with the gain in margin for Cycle 13 for the allowable PLHR vs. burnup would be no more limiting than operating with the Cycle 12 PLHR vs. burnup requirements.
Therefore, this change does not increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
2)
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
It has been determined that a new or different type of accident is not created because no new or different modes of operation are proposed for the plant.
The continued use of the same Technical Specification administrative controls prevents the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3)
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Administrative k
specifications involving the allowable PLHR vs. burnup ensure that operating with the additional margin gained from the Kw/ft allowable limit conforms to current plant conditions and, therefore, preserves the margin of safety.
Based on the above considerations, OPPD does not believe that this proposed amendment involves a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10CFR50.92 and the )roposed changes will not result in a condition which significantly alters tie im act of the Station on the environment. Thus, the proposed change meets the eli ibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10CFR51.22(e)9)andpursuantto10CFR51.22(b)noenvironmentalassessmantneed be prepared.
t r
s r
n
Descripti9nofAmendmentRequeststoReducetheIntegratedRadialPeaking Factor FR to 1.70 TheproposedTechnicalSpecificationchanoesinTableB-1 correspondi Items 1, 4 and 5 for Technical Specificatlons Section 1.1 on page 1-2, igure 2-9andSection2.10.4(2)onpage2-57aconcernthereductionoftheFR value from 1.80 to 1.70.
l In order to maintain the validity of the DN3-LSSS and DNB-LCO operating l
requirements during Cycle 13 operation, additional operating mar;in is T
required. By reducing F theadditionalmarginisgainedintheDNBjCO tentandintheThermalkar, gin /LowPressureLSSSsafetylimits.
The Fa and F
' limits as a function of power in Technical Specification Figure 2-9hafebeenrevisedtomaintainconistencywiththechangetoSection1.1-and2.10.4(2).
Besis for No Sionificant Harards Determination:
This proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration because the operation of Fort Calhoun Station in accordance with this amendment would nott 1)
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an i
accident previously evaluated.
This change allows for utilization of th9additionalmarginavailablewiththereductionofthemaximum Fa value with no changes in administrative specifications. On the basis of the technical safety evaluation, operating with a gain in margin for the Cycle 13 DNB-LCO would be no more limiting than operating with the existing Cycle 12 DNB-LCO.
Therefore, this change does not increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
2)
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
It has been determined that a new or different type of accident is not created because no new or different modes of operation are proposed for the plant. The continued use of the same Technical Specification administrative controls prevents the possibility of~a new or different kind of accident.
3)
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Administrative specificationsinvolvingtheDNB-LCOensurethattheop9rationwiththe additional extra margin gained from the reduction of FR conforms to current plant conditions and, therefore, preserves the margin of safety.
Based on the above considerations, OPPD does not believe that this proposed amendment involves a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10CFR50.92.
1 a
-,.m w
Descript ion 4 Pump Operation PAmendment Request of yar Equation 2 for TechnicalThe proposed Techni to Revise the Ther mal Specification Margin / Low Pressure LS cal constant of Specification Figure 1 the P SS change in Table 8-1 c The reduction in th var equation from 11350
-3, concerns the TM/LP change in gamma fromtriptoprotectder gamma term is psia to -11240 psia reduction in the gammo eP trip will plant under required initiate
-11350 psia to -11240 pall allowed operatin pressure than previo a
to an operating margin is gai automatic us ly a llowed. scram from ability to sia is maintain conservativeonditions. of the a higtfreactorfcoolantas the TM/LP consistency withned in the PBy reducing the The i
the revNedPequat ion.
y r
F gurama term system i
i an because the operatiThis proposed amend yar equation. e 1-3 has beenadditional
\\
r ment does mina i revised would not:
\\
\\
not involve a on of Fort Calhoun Statiosignificant hazards 1)
Involve n in a
accident previouslysignificant increase i accordancewith thisconsiderat ion the P TM y r equation evaluated bas /LP krip with noallows for.
n the probability or amendment The is of in the TM the technical safetchanges in ut ilizat ionreduction in the operat ing /LP administre of additiona amma trip function for Cy evaluation,tive of an marg constant in Therefore, with the specifications.in in the change doesexisting Cycle 12 TM/LPycle 13 would be of a previously eval this operating with the On the 2) accident previously eCreate the possibilituated a P
no more limi margin gain var trip equation. ting than a ility or different type y of a new It has been determior differen consequences modes of accident isvaluated.
same Technicalof operation Specificationare proposed for the pl not created because possibility of a accident from any ned 3) that a new or different kind ofadministrative ant.
no new Involve new or The continued useor different a
specifications involvisignificant reduction i controls prevents the with the accident.
of the additional margin gaing the TM/LP margin in the P n a therefore,ar v
equat ion ned from thetrip functionof safety.
Based on the preserves theconforms to ensure that operatingAdministr current reduction 10CFR50.92, amendment involves above margin of safety. plant conditions of considerations, OPPDsignificant hazards the gamma term a
- and, does considerationnot believe that as defined bythis proposed
Description of Amendment Request to Revise the Thermal Margin / Low Pressure LSSS 4 Pump Operation P Equation yar l
The proposed Technical Specification change in Table B-1 corresponding to Item 2 for Technical Specification Figure 1-3, concerns the reduction in tl1e gamma j
constant of the P equation from -11350 psia to -11240 psia.
j var The reduction in the P gamma term is required to ensure the ability of the TM/LPtriptoprotectdeplantunderallallowedoperatingconditions. The p
change in gamma from -11350 psia to -11240 psia is conservative as the TM/LP trip will initiate an automatic scram from a higtfreacto# coolant system pressure than previously allowed.
By reducing the gamma term additional operating margin is gained in the P equation. F gure 1-3 has been revised tomaintainconsistencywiththerevNedP equation.
y var Basis for No Sionificant Hazards Determination:
This proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration because the operation of Fort Calhoun Station in accordance with this amendment would not:
1)
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The reduction in the gamma constant in the P equation allows for utilization of additional margin in the i
TM/LPEipwithnochangesinadministrativespecifications. On the y
basis of the technical safety evaluation, operating with the margin gain i
in the TM/LP tri) function for Cycle 13 would be no more limiting than o)erating with tie existing Cycle 12 TM/LP P trip equation.
i var Tierefore, this change does not increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
I.
2)
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
It has been determined that a new or different type of accident is not created because no new or different modes of operation are proposed for the plant. The continued use of the same Technical Specification administrative controls prevents the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3)
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Administrative specifications involving the TM/LP trip function ensure that operating with the additional margin gained from the reduction of the gamma term in the P equation conforms to current plant conditions and, va therefore,r. preserves the margin of safety.
Based on the above considerations, OPPD does not believe that this proposed amendment involves a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10CFR50.92.
e i
t f
Description of Amendment Request for Correcting Typographical Errors The proposed Technical Specification changes in Table B-1 corresponding to Item 6 for Technical Specification 1.1 on Page 1-2 concerns correcting typographical errors by changing "Section 2-10" to "Section 2.10" in paragraph 3, line 2 and the word "that" to "than" in paragraph 3, line 7.
DuringtheevaluationofTechnicalSpecificationchangesforC{cle13,the incorrect reference to "Section 2-10" and the misspelled word that" were i
discovered in Technical Specification 1.1.
The appropriate reference is "Section 2.10" and the word "that" should be spelled 'than".
These errors are obviously typographic in nature and, therefore, pose no significant hazards consideration.
Basis for No Sionificant Hazards Determination 3
I This proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration because the operation of Fort Calhoun Station in accordance with this amendment would not:
1)
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The changes allow for correct notation of a Technical Specification reference section and correct spelling of a word. Therefore, these changes do not increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
2)
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evalented.
It has been determined that a new or different type of accident is not cret.ted because no new or different modes of operation are proposed for the plant. The continued use of the same Technical Specification administrative controls prevents the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3)
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Neither these typographical errors nor their correction will reduce the margin of safety.
Based on the above considerations, OPPD does not believe that this proposed amendment involves a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10CFR50.92.
i l
Description of Amendment Request for Correcting a Typographical Error The proposed Technical Specification change in Table B-1 corresponding to Item 7forTechnicalSpecification2.10.4(3)onPage2-57aconcernscorrectinga typographical error by changing the word " vale" to "value".
During the evaluation of Technical Specification changes for Cycle 13, a misspelledwordwasdiscoveredinTechnicalSpecification2.10.4(3). The word t
in question is spelled " vale", however, the correct spelling of the word is no significant hazards consideration. graphic in nature and, therefore, poses "value". This error is obviously typo Basis for No Sionificant Hazards Determination
[
This proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration because the operation of Fort Calhoun Station in accordance with this amendment would not:
1)
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The change allows for correct spelling of a word.
Therefore, this change does not increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
2)
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
It has been determined that a new or different type of accident is not created because no new or different modes of operation are proposed for the plant.
The continued use of the same Technical Specification administrative controls prevents the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3)
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Neither this typographical error nor its correction will reduce the margin of safety.
Based on the above considerations, OPPD does not believe that this proposed amendment involves a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10CFR50.92.
I w
9
l r
Description of Amendment Requests for Administrative Changes The proposed Technical Specification changes in Table B-1 corresponding to Item 8 for iechnical Specification 1.1 on Page 1-2 concern adding' the notation
"(F T " after the words " total unrodded planar radial peak, and revising USAEre)ferences,specificallyrevisingReference(1))onth Section "3.6.7" to "3.6.6" and changing Reference (3 to Reference (1) as a result of USAR revisions.
Because of the reference changes, "less than 1.18 (3)" is required to be changed to "less than 1.18 (1)" in paragraph 4, line 10.
The proposed change to add the notation "(F T)" to describe the total unroddedplanarradialpeakisconsidereda65inistrativeanddoesnotaffect initialuseofthetermunroddedradialpeakanditgeclarifiesanddefinesthe the safe operation of the plant.
The proposed chan s abbrevia ion, similar to whatisdonefortheunroddedtotalintegratedradialpeak(F{)inthe R
subsequent sentence.
Because of USAR revisions the reference to USAR Section i
"3.6.7"shouldnowbe"3.6.6"andReference(3),isnowthesameasReference (1). These changes are also considered administrative changes and do not l
l affect the safe operation of the plant.
Basis for No Sianificant Hazards Determin311on This proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration because the operation of Fort Calhoun Station in accordance with this amendment would not:
1)
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The above administrative changes do not affect plant operation other than to improve consistency,-clarity, and correct referencing in the Technical Specifications.
Therefore, these changes do not increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated eccident.
I 2)
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
It has-been determined that a new or different type of accident is not created because no new or different modes of operation are proposed for the plant. The continued use of the same Technical Specification administrative controls prevents the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3)
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Administrative specifications involving addition of a word and revision of USAR references will not reduce the margin of safety.
Based on the above considerations, OPPD does not believe that this proposed amendment involves a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10CFR50.92.
i
.