ML20055E524

Forwards Commission Biweekly Notice of Applications & Amends to OLs Involving NSHC Published in Fr on 900516

ML20055E524
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/29/1990
From:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Graham B SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
References
NUDOCS 9007120102
Download: ML20055E524 (29)

Text

.

[

June-29, 1990~

. IDENTICAL LETTERS SENT TO:

(SeeattachedL11stofaddressees) h The Hon'rable Bob Graham, Chairman-o Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation Comittee on. Environment and Public Works United States Senate' Washington, D. C.

20510.

j

'i Dear Mr.' Chairman-1 Public Law 97-415, enacted on' January 4, 1983, amended Section 189 of'the l

Atomic Energy Act of.1954 to authorize-the Nuclear Regulatory Comission

~

to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating

-license upon a determination by the Comission that such amendment involves no significant' hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before.

a the Commission of a request for a hearing.

In. addition,thelegislationrequires-theCommissiontoperiodically.(but not less frequently than once every 30' days) publish notice of any--

i amendments issued, or proposed' to be issued, under the new authority above.

Enclosed.for your-information is-a copy of the Comission's Biweekly Notice 1

of Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses involving no significant hazards considerations, wh_ich was published in the Federal' Register on 1

May 16, 1990 (55 FR 20349)^

I Sincerely,

/s/

h Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j

b Enclosure-

.i Federal Register Notice cc: Sen. Alan K. Simpson DISTRIBUTION w/o enclosure:

i (Central d11e3 NRC PDR i

OGC GPA/CA(3)

JTaylor TMurley/FMiraglia SECY Mail Facility

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE LA:PD31:DRSP* D:PD31:DRSP*

AD:RIII:DRSP* [d ADP R

l MRShuttleworth RPierson JZwolinski

[f ield JPartlow b % 6 FM 1a 06/04/90.

06/04/90 06/06/90 06/e/90 06/p/90-0-

(g6/)/90.

06//f/^90 (A,[A.

T Mu ley f

t NRC FILE CEN L

1 9007120102 900629 L

POR ORG NRRB g

PDC

r

't t,,

-?

cc:

The Honorab'le Morris K. Udall,' Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee-on ~ Interior and Insular Affairs United' States House of Representatives Washington,'D. C.

20515 cc:-. Rep. James V. Hansen The' Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman

. Subcommittee on. Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representativas Washington, D. C.

20515

~

cc: ~ Rep. Carlos Moorhead I

i 1

l l

1 l

l

1 1

Federal Register / Vcl. 55. No. 95 / Wcdnesday. May so.1990 / Nstices 20349 Branch Division of Preedom of -

which peutioner wishes to intervene.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY ressasseannas Information and Publications Services.

Any person who has fued a petition for Office of Adminletration U.S. Nuclear leave to intervene or who has been thseeldy Nonce Apptostione end Regulatory Commission. Washingtan, admitled as a party may amend the Ameemnto to Opemen0 uoenees DC 20555, and should cite the peution without requesting leave of the involving No Signifloent Hasarde publication date and page number of Board u to fifteen (15) days prior to the Conaldemnone this Federal Register notice. Written first pr earing conference scheduled in g, - _.

comments may_also be delivered to the proceeding, but such an amended Pursuant to Public Law (P.L.)07-415.

Room P-223. muipe Building. FR20 petition must satisfy the specificity t

Norfolk Avenue.Bethesda, Maryland requirements described above.

Commission)is publisthe Nuclear Regulatoh'a==lantan (the this regular from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Copies of Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to biweekly notice.P.L 97 415 revised written comments received may be the first prehearing conference i'

examined at the NRC Public Document section too of the Atoodc Energy Act of scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner Romn. b Gelman BuH 20 L 1954, as amended (the Act), to require the Coramission to ublish notice of any Street. NW., Washington.

%e filing shall fue a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of amendments isso or y.

- f to be of requests for he and petitions for leave to intervene is iscussed below, the contentions which are sought to be issued, under a new provision of section litigated in the matter. Each contention 180 of the Act.nla provision grants the By June 15.1990, the licensee may file must consist of a specific statement of Commission the authority to issue and a request for a he with respect to the issue oflaw or fact to be raised or niake immediately effective any issuance of the ame ent to the controverted. In addition, the petitioner amendment to an operating license upon subject facility operating license and shall provide a briexplanation of the a determination by the Commission that any person whose interest may be -

bases of the contention and a concise such amendment involves no significant affected by this proceeding and who statement of the alleged facts or expert hazards consideration. notwithstandina wishes to participate as e party in the opinion which support the contention the pendency before the Comadssion of proceeding must file a written petition and on which the petitioner intends to a request for a hearing from any person.

for leave to intervene. Requests for a his biweekly notice includes all hearing and petitions for leave to rely in proving the contentinn at the notices of amendmentsissued,or intervene shall be filed in accordance hearing.%e petitlocc-must also rovide ref to th ifi proposed to be issued from April 25, with the Commission's Rules of

[ources and ents o wh ch the 1990 through May 4.1990.%e last Practice for Domestic Ucensing oneri awjn and on w i biweekly notice was published on May Proceedings"in to CFR Part 2.

p

)y 2.1990 (55 FR 18406)'

Interested persons should consult a pe current copy of10 CFR 2.714 which is those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF available at the Commission's Public must provide sufficient information to ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO Document Room, the Gelman Building

• show that a genuine dispute exists with FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND 2120 L Street. NW., Washington. DC the applicant on a materialissue of low PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT 20655 and at the Local Public Document or fact. Contentions shall be limited to HAZARDS CONSIDERA'I10N Room for the particular facility involved. matters within the scope of the DETERMINATION AND If a request for a hearing or petition for amendments under consideration.%e OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING leave to intervene is filed by the above contention must be one which,if proven.

%e Commission has made a proposed date, the Commission or an Atomic would entitle the petitioner to relief. A determination that the following Safety and ucensing Board, designated petitioner who falls to file such a amendment requests involve no by the Commission or by the Chairman supplement which satisties these significant hazards consideration. Under of the Atomic Safety and ucenstng requirements with respect to at least one the Commission's regulations in to CFR Board Panel, will rule on the request contention will not be permitted to 50.92, this means that operation of the and/or petition and the Secretary or the Participate as a party, facility in accordance with the proposed designated Atomic Safety and ucensing Those permitted to intervene become amendments would not (1) Involve a Board will issue a notice of hearing or parties to the proceeding, subject to any i

significant increase in the probability or an appropriate order, limitations in the order granting leave to i consequences of an accident previously As required by 10 CFR LF14, a intervene, and have the opportunity to evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of petition for leave to intervene shall set participate fully in the conduct of the a new or different kind of accident from forth with particularity the interest of hearing. Including the opportunity to any accident previously evaluated; or (3) the petitioner in the proceeding, and present evidence and cross. examine involve a significant reduction in a how that interest may be affected by the witnesses.

margin of safety.The basis for this results of the proceeding.%e petition if a heari i ted th proposed determination for each should specifically explain the reasons Comminsi n will make a fina1 amendment request is shown below.

wh latervention should be permitted The Commission is seeking public with particular reference to the determination on the issue of no comments on this proposed following factors:(1) the nature of the significant hazards consideration. The determination. Any comments received petitioner's right under the Act to be final determination will serve to decide within 30 days after the date of made a party to the proceeding;(2) the when the hearing is held.

publication of this notice willlie nature and extent of the petitioner's if the final determination is that the considered in making any final property, financial, or other interest in amendment request involves no determination.The Commission will not the proceeding: and (3) the possible significant hasards consideration, the normally make a final determination effect of any order which may be Commission may issue the amendment unless it receives a request for a entered in the proceeding on the and make it immediately effective, hearing.

petitioner's interest.The petition abould notwithstanding the request for a Written comments may be submitted also identify the specific aspect (s) of the hearing. Any hearing held would take by mall to the Regulatory Publications subject matter of the proceeding as to place afterissuance of the amendment.

20350 Federal Register / W1. 55 N2, 95 / W dnisday, M1y 16,1990 / Notices If the finaldeterminationis that the amendment which is available for public Diferion 2. Does Not Create the

{

amendment involves a significant inspection at the Commission's Public Poutbility of a New or Diffent Kind of hazards consideration, any hearing held Document Room, the Gelman Building.

Accident from any Previously Evaluted would take place before the issuance of 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, h proposed change does not involve a 8** "*d'A*d P Y**I "***'" 'Y'"***

h any amendment.

and at the local public document room w componen a te e

Normally, the Commission will not for the particular facility involved, t="nd.. - requiremeni f.

i ;,*

qd fgpay norce pe,1,,.

A*ansas,o.or. ugh, Co any, am exp on o, Docket No. 503e8 Arkansas Nuclear calibretion of outef tolerance channels. Both o

• N t8 OneWah 2, Pope County. Arkansas

,xp{c t nnd t erefoN not ce pe su h af ure qu to act in a timely way would result, for Date of amendment request: March 2, wul not create the poutbility of a new or example,in derating or shutdown of the 1900 different kind of accident from any facility, the Commission may issue the Description of amendment request previously evaluated, license amendment before the The proposed amendment would modify Olierion 3 Don Not involve a Significant expiration of the 30 day notice period, the channel calibration requirements for Reduction in the Margin of Safety provided that its final determinauon is unear Power level, Core Protection m margins of ufety are defined by those that the amendment involves no Calculator (CPC) delta T Power, and Design Basis Events which credit the high significant hazards consideration.%e CPC Nuclear Power si als with respect linear p werlevel trip: the DNBR trip; and

&e local power density trip, as described in final determination will consider all to the Calorimetric Ca ulated Power blic and State comments received contained in Specification 3/4.3.1. Table hu#[e aNun neervebsm c

fan fore action is taken. Should the 4.31 Note (2) of the Arkansas Nuclear allowed in the safety system power Commission take this action,it will One, Unit 2 Technical Specifications, indications, and by not requiring adjustments publish a nohce of issuance and provide The amendment would also add a time of these indications in the non-conservative for opportunity for a hearing after limit for declaring the channel dimetion when they are already issuance. The Commission expects that inoperable.

conservative, the margin of safety is the need to take this action will occur Basisforproposedno significant increased rather than reduced. Furthermore, very infrequently, hazards consideration determination the addiuon of a requirement to declare a A request for a hearing or a petition The Commission has provided channel inoperable if not calibrated within for leave to intervene must be filed with the sPecified time hmit places more standards for determining whether a netriction on the allowed operauon of the the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

significant hazards consideration exists systems and as such does not involve a Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed significant reduction in the margin of safety, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

amendment to an operating license for a The time ilmit specified (24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) is Docketing and Services Branch, or may facility inv lves no significant hazards consistent with the current requirements on be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, considerationif operation of the facility channel comparison.

in accordance with the proposed The Commiulon has provided guidance 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by amendment would not:(1) Involve a conceming the application of the standards th ab d ' h filed du ng el tt n 0) ays o the' significant increase in the probability or for determining whether a significant hazards notice period, it is requested that the consequences of an accident previously consideration exists.The proposed petitioner promptly so inform the evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of amendment most clowly matches example a new or different kind of accident from (ii)"A change that constitutes an additional Commission by a toll. free telephone call hmitauon, restriction, or control not presently to Weetern Union at 1-(800) 325-6000 (in any accident previously evaluated; or (3) included in the technical specifications, e.g., a l

Missouri t ia00) 342-6700). The Western involve a significant reduction in a more stringent surveillance requirement."

Union operator should be given margin of safety. The licensee provided The NRC staff has reviewed the Datagram identification Number 3737 en analysis that addressed the above licensee's no significant hazards three standards in the amendment and the following message addressed to consideration det,erminat!on and agrees (Project Director): petitioner's name and application.

gg g

telephone number; date petition was in accordance with the requirements Accordingly, the Commission proposes mailed: plant name; and publication of10 CFR 50.92(c), the licensee to determine that the proposed date and page number of this Federal submitted the following no significant amendment involves no significant Register notice. A copy of the petition hazards evaluation:

hazards consideration.

should also be sent to the Office of the Critermn f Don Not involve a Significant Generag Counseg U.S. Nucgear lacrease in the Probability or Consequenca LocalPublic DocumentRoom of an Accident Previously Evaluated location Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Regulatory Commission Washington, The propoud change reduces the amount Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas DC 20555, and to the attorney for the of non conservative error presently allowed 72801 d

ontilnely filings of petitions for leave $i n the re uNmentIo haIn51 Aftorneyforlicensee: Nicholas S.

Reynolds, Esq., Bishop, Cook, Purcell &

l to intervene, amended petitions, calibration when the indicauons are already supplemental petitions and/or requests conservative settmg does not increase the Reynolds,1400 L Street, NW.,

for hearing will not be entertained probability or consequences of any accident Washington, DC 20005-3502 absent a determination by the The proposed change also adds a time hmit NRCProject Director: Frederick J.

Commission, the presiding officer or the for channel calibration. The addition of this Hebdon presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing y,

,,",j,,Q,y,p Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, b

np y

Board, that the petition and/or request evaluated, as this is a new requirement Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert should be granted based upon a added to the specification.This requirement Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos.1 balancing of factors specified in 10 CFR ensures that a channel deviation is corrected and 2, Calvert County, Maryland 2.714(a)(1)(l)-(v) and 2.714(d).

within a reasonable time frame to assure For further details with respect to this compliance with the assumptions of the Date of amendment request hiny 2, action, see the application for safety analyses.

1990.

Federal Register / Vtl. 55, Nw 95 / Wedneediy, May 16, 1900 / Natioes 30351 Description of amendmeentsugesta and industry inspections in general, e determine that the proposed change The proposed amendments iroold have been satisfactory. No significant does not involve a algnincant hazards include the following changes in degradation in RCP Dywheel integrity is conalderation.

accordance with the licensee's request expected throughout the entire 40 year Loco 1PublicDocument Room dated May 2,1990, plant life cycle.%ese RCP flywheels location: Calvert County 1.ibrary, Prince ne requested change to the Technical have been idled for an extended laterval Frederick, Maryland.

Specifications would modify due to the present outages.

Attorneyforlicensee: Jay E. SIlbert, Surveillance Requirmnent 4.4.10.1.1 by Consequently, even considering the Esq., Shew,Pittman Potts and revising the existing footnoterao pages additional time requested for the Trowbridge,2300 N Street, NW.,

3/4 4-28 and 4-20 to replace the June inspection completions, the flywheels Washington, DC 20037.

i 1990 and 1991 detee with a reference to will not heve been subjected to anF IVRCPro/ectDirectorrRobert A.

the applicable Unit 1 and Unit 2 significant increase in wear or stress Capra refueling outages.

caused by normal operation.

%e Nuclear Regulatory Commission Additionally, the detailed level of Carolina Power & Light Company et al.,

(NRC) issued license Amendment Nos.

Inspection provided bylinking the Docket No. 50-325, Brunswick Steam 125 and 126 modifying the Unit 1 and 2 flywheel enminations to the RCP motor Electric Plant Unit 1. Brunswick County, Technical Specification Surveillance overhaul program are considered better North Carolina Requirement 4.4.10.1.1 to link the than for a conventionalin. place Date of applicationfor amendment:

completion of the reactor coolant pump vltrasonic examination. Therefore.

April 4,1990 (RCP) flywheelinspections to the RCp extending the initial inservice inspection motor overhaul program.%e original interval does not involve a significant Descript/on of amendment request schedules called for completion of the increase in the probability or ne proposed amendment revises the RCP motor overhaul program and consequences of an accident previcualy minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) flywheelinspections to coincide with evaluated.

safety limit specified in Technical the completion of Unit 1 Refueling (2) Use of the modified specification Specification 2.1.2 from 1.04 t01.07 for Outage (RI'O) (June 1990) and Unit 2 would not create the possiblity of a new Cycle 8 operation. In addition. Technical RFO (June 1991).%e dates for these or different kind of accident from any Specification 5.3.1 has been revised to-.

refueling outages have been revised as a accident previously avaluated.

0) Meet the new M1 type W82-result of an extended shutdown of both The proposed change would result in

3) which will be laserted in the units since the first half of 1989 to an additional extension of upcoming refueling outage (2) more accomplish certain unrelated hardware approximately 18 months in the actual clearly identify existing fuel types, and evaluations, repairs and various completion date for the licensee's RCP (3) delete fuel types that will not be in administrative actions.ne new flywheel inspection program. However, the core during Cycle e.

schedules for Unit 1 RfC and Unit 2 the current inspection program Basisforproposedno significon hozords consideroflon detersunata,t RFO are fall 1901 and spring 1992 (performance of the RCPflywheel nt respectively, based on a Unit 1 startup inspection in conjunction with the RCP

%e Commission has provided in July 1990 and a Unit 2 startup in motor overhauls) was previously standards for determining whether a no October 1990, reviewed and accepted by the NRC and significant hazards consideration exists Basis forproposedno significant would remain unaffected by the as stated in to CFR 50.92(c). A proposed hozords mnsideration determinatione proposed change. Also, no new amendment to an operating license The Commission has provided hardware is being added to the plant as involves no significant hazards standards for determining whether a a result of this proposed change, no consideration if operation of the facility significant hazards consideration exists existing equipment is being modified, in accordance with the proposed as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed nor are any significantly different types amendment would not:(1) Involve a amendment to an operating license for a of operations being introduced. Since no significant increase in the probability or facility involves no significant hazards modifications to the intent of the consequences of an accident previously consideration if operation of the facility Technical Specifications are being evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of in accordance with a proposed made, no new accident will be created a new or different kind of accident from amendment would not:(1) Involve a by the proposed change.

any accident previously evaluated or (3) significant increase in the probability or (3) Use of the modified specification involve a significant reduction in a consequences of an accident previously would not involve a significant margin of safety, evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of reduction in a margin of safety.

Carolina Power & Light Company (the a new or different kind of accident from These RCP flywheels have been Idled licensee] has reviewed the following any accident previously evaluated; or (3) for an extended interval due to the two (2) proposed changes and has involve a significant reduction in a present maintenance outage.

determined that the requested margin of safety.

Consequently, even considering the amendments do not involve a significant The licensee addressed the above additional time requested for the hazards consideration for the followin8 three standards in the amendment inspection completions, the flywheels reasons:

application. In regard to the three will not have been subjected to any Proposed Change I standards, the licensee provided the significant increase in wear or stress Revise the Minimum Critical Power Ration following analysis.

caused by normal operation.The (MCPR) Safety Limit specified in Technical (1) Operation of the facility in proposed change, therefore, does not specification 2.1.2 from 1.04 to 1.07.

accordance with the proposed involve a significant reduction in a 1A pmposed amendment does not amendment would not involve a margin of safety.

involve a significant increase in the ygf,$'y,"l Q $",**

y significant increase in the probability or The staff has reviewed and agrees

• Y consequences of an accident previously with the licensee s analysis of the evaluated.

significant hazards consideration is set to protect the integrity of the fuel cladding from undergoing bolling transition The results of the licensee's RCP determination. Based on the review and following any dedgn basis trancent. The flywheelinspections performed to date, the above discussion, the etaff proposes MCPR Safety IJmit is defined as the critical

20352 Federal Register / V91. 55. N2. 95 / Wednied:y. May 16, 1990 / NoticIs power totio in th'e limiting assembly for two amoved fuel types will no longer be Duke Power, Company, et al Docket which more than so.e percent of the fuel rods sub)s:ted to a potential design basis Nos. 50413 and 50 414. Catawba in the core are expected to avoid boiling transient. Derefore, the probability or transition considering the power distribution consequences of an accident previously Nuclear Station. Units 1 and 2. York within the core and all uncertainties. The evaluated are not significantly increased.

County, South Cardina NRC has reviewed and accepted the

2. The GEaX8NB-3 fuel type was previously Dole of amendmentrequesf March 29, application of the CE8X8NB (C lettice) MCPR reviewed and found acceptable by the NRC Safety Umit ior the CE8XaNB-3 (D-le ttice) for use as documented in Amendment 21 to 1990, as supplemented April 26,1990 fuel type in Amendment 21 to NEDE 24011 P-CESTAR II. No new mode or condition of Description of amendment requeste A. " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel'* (CESTAR 11).The MCPR Safety plant operation will be authorized by this

• Ee proposed amendments would change.

relocate Technical Specification (TS)

Umit value for C. lattice fuelis higher than Therefore, the proposed change will not Table 3.t) 1, " Secondary Containment the MCPR Safety Umit for D-lattice fuel.

create the possibility for a new or different

%erefore, the 1.07 MCPR Safety Umit for C-kind of accident from any accident previously Bypass Leakage Paths," TS Table 3.6-2a.

lettice fuel conservatively bounds the evaluated.

" Unit 1 Containment Isolation Valves,"

GE8X8ND-3 fuella D lattice fuel type). As a The 8X8R and P8X8R fuel types will be and TS Table 3.6 2b," Unit 2 result, the 1.07 MCPR Safety Umit assures removed from the Unit 1 core for Cycle 8 and Containment teolation Valves," to that the fuel claddmg protection equivalent to replaced with the CE8X8ND-3 fuel type. Catawba Final Safety Analysis Report that provided with the 1.04 MCPR Safety Umit (i.e.,99.9 percent of all fuel rode in the Removal of the two fuel types will create no (FSAR) Chapter 16 Selected Licensee new mode or condition of plant operation.

Commitments (SLC) Manual. The core being expected to avoid boiling Therefore, the removal of the SXBR and proposed changes to TSs 1.7. 4.6.1.1, transition)is maintained.

2. The proposed amendment does not P8X8R fuel types will not create the create the possibthey of a new or different possibility for a new or different kind of 3.6.1.2. 3.6.3,4.6.3.1,4.6.3.2 and 4.6.3.3, kind of accident from any accident previously accident from any accident previously and TS Bases 3/4.6.4 would provide evalu a d.

clarification and reflect the relocation of evaluated. No plant controls or equipment 3.The GE8XSND-3 fuel type and its the above tables to FSAR Tables 16.6.1 are modified that will change the plant's associated analysis methodologies were 1,16.6.2-1, and 16.6.2-2, respectively.

response to any accident or transient as given in any current analysis. Also, the 1.07 reviewed and found acceptable by the NRC Basisforpmposedno significant in Amendment 21 to GESTAR 11.The MCPR Safety Umit does not allow any new GE8X8NB-3 fuel type was analysed using hazards consideration determination:

mode or condition of plant operation different from that currently stated in the Updated these methods to ensure required margins to 73 Table 3.6-Ilists containment FinalSafety Analysis Report.

safety (e.g., fuel cladding integnty safety limit Penetrations and identifies their service-3.ne proposed amendment does not and reactor coolant systern integrityl are location and 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1 test involve a significant reduction in the margin maintained. As discussed in Proposed types. TS Tables 3.6-2a and 3.6-2b list of safety.The MCPR Safety Umit is set to Change 1 above, the MCPR Safety Umit was containment isolation valves and selected to maintain the fuel cladding identify their function and maximum protect the integrity of the fuel cladding from integrity safety limit (i.e., that 99.9 percent of undergoing boiling transition following any all fuel rods in the core by expected to avoid allowed isolation time. The contents of design basis transient. Margin is incorporated boiling transition). Therefore, the proposed existing TS Tables 3.6-1,3.6-2a and 3 0-into the limit to allow for uncertainties in rnonitoring the core operating state and in change does not result in a significant 2b have been added to the Catawba calculating the critical power ratio so that reduction in the margin of safety, FSAR as Tables 16.6.11,16.6.2-1 and no 8X8R and PBX 8R fuel types will be 16.6.2-2. Hence relocating the tables 99 9 percent of all toda do not experience removed from the Unit 1 core for Cycle 8 and from the TSs to the FSAR would not boiling transition following any design basis transient.The NRC accepted methodology replaced with the GE8X8ND-3 fuel type, ne change the Limiting Conditions for used to derive the 1.07 MCPR Safety Umst two removed fuel types will no longer be Operation (LCOs) or Surveillance applies the same criteria as that used to subjected to a potential design basis derive the current Ibn MCPK Safety Umit.

transient.Therefore, removal of these two Requirements (SRs).

thus providmg equivalent fuel cladding fuel types will not involve a significant in event future changes am protection as that provided by the current reduction in the margin of safety.

needed to this information in the FSAR, MCPR Safety Umit of tbl.

The licensee has concluded that the the proposed changes would be N' #

proposed amendment meets the three evaluated in accordance with the standards in 10 CFR 5092 and process described in 10 CFR 50.50.

y th'elice s e not o Pa 8 u tpata o eu e

azar c nsid rat on et e

core during Cycle 8.

The NRC staff has made a preliminary involve an unreviewed safety question

1. Use of the GE8X8NB-3 fuel type was review of the licensee's no significant may be made without prior Commission generically found to be acceptable by the hazards consideration determination approval. A report of such changes, NRC in Amendment 21 to GESTAR II.The fuel design has been analyzed using and agrees with the licensee's analysis.

including a summary of the safety approved methods document <J in GESTAR Il Accordingly, the Commission proposes evalt.ation of each, would be submitted with the results being within acceped limits, to determine that the requested annually to the Commission.The amendment does not involve a Commission has determined, as part of the I

f ty1 m t we se ct d o significant hazards consideration.

Its implementation policy for TS maintain the fuel claddmg integrity safety LocalPublic Document Room improvements, that the subject limit.The GE8X8NB-3 fuel response to location: University of North Carolina at penetrations and valves are appropriate analyzed transients will be performed and Wilmington, William Madison Randall for this process, appropetute operating limit MCPR values will be incorporated in the Core Operating umits Library,601 S. College Road.

The Commission has provided Report as required by Specification 6.9.3.1' Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297.

standards for determining whether a thereby assuring the probabihty or Afforneyforlicensee R.E. Jones, significant hazards consideration exists Ceneral Counsel, Carolina Power &

as stated in 10 CFR 50.02(c).The e uat are n t si i tl ased.

Light Company, P.O. Box 1551, Raleigh, Commission's staff has reviewed the The 8X8R and PBX 8R fuel types will be North Carolina 27602 licensee a proposed changes to the TSs removed from the Unit 1 core for Cycle 8 and NRCProject Dimetor: Elinor G.

and finds that the proposed changes replaced with the GE8X8ND-3 fuel type. The Adensam would not:

Federal Register / Vol. 55 No. 95 / Wednssday, May 10,1990 / N2tices 20353 (1) Involve a significant increase in Basisforpmposedno significant devices from the Technical the probability or consequenoes of an

• hazards considemtion determination:

Specifications (TSa) to Chapter 16 of the accident previously evaluated. Because The Commission has provided Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),

the proposed changes would not affect standards for determining whether a

" Selected Licensee Commitment the LCOs, SRs, or operability significant hazards consideration exists Manual." Specifically, TS Table 3.8-ta, requirements of the subject equipment, (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed

Unit 1 Containment Penetration there would be no effect on a previously amendment to an operating license Conductor Overcurrent Protective analyzed accident.

involves no significant hazards Devices," and TS Table 3.8-1b, " Unit 2 (2) Create the possibility of a new or consideration if operation of the facility Containment Penetration Conductor i

different kind of accident from any in accordance with the proposed Overcurrent Protective Devices," would accident previously evaluated. Because amendment would not:(1)lovolve a be deleted, and references to them in i

there would be no changes in hardware significant increase in the probability or

• Iss 3/4.8.4 would be changed to or in the way the plant is operated, the consequences of an accident previously reference FSAR Chapter 16. The TS potential for an unanalyzed accident evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of Index would be updated to reflect this would not be created. Also, no new a new or different kind of accident from deletion.

failure modes would be introduced.

any accident previously evaluated; or (3)

Basisforproposedno significant (3) Involve a significant reduction in s, involve a significant reduction in a hazanis consideration determination:

margin of safety. Because the proposed margin of safety.

TS Tables 3.8-1a and 3.8-1b list devices changes would not affect the The proposed revisions would not (deenergizing circuit breakers and fuses) consequences of any accident involve a significant increase in the associated with the protection of previously analyzed or create new or probability or consequences of an containment electrical penetrations and different ones, there would be no accident previously evaluated because penetration conductors due to excessive reduction in any margin of safety, the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) current. For each device number, the Accordingly, the Commission Chapter 15 accidents were es aluated proposes to determine that the using a decontamination efficiency of tables identify location, trip setpoint or application for amendments involves no 95%. Therefore, offsite and onsite doses continuous rating, response time, and significant hazards consideration.

w uld remain the same, the associated system powered by the Loco /Public Document Room The proposed revisions would not circuit.The proposed amendments location York County 1.ibrary,138 East create the possibility of a new or involve no substantive changes to the contents of the tables, only format Black Street, Rock 11111, South Carolina "j,ent kind b{

changes due to their relocation from the accide r P

Y 29730 Attorneyforlicensee:Mr. Albert Carr, they would not involve any physical TSs to the FSAR.TS 3.8.4 requires, as a Duke Power Company,422 South anges to the station or its operating limiting condition for operation (LCO),

d ou n roduce that the devices listed in these tables be Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina fny m' $s maintained operable in Modes 1,2,3, 28242 9p NRCProject Director: David B.

Finally, the proposed revisions would and 4:TS 4.8.4 requires, as a Matthews not involve a significant reduction in a surveillance requirement (SR), that the margin of safety because the FSAR devices periodically be demonstrated Duke Power Company, et al., Docket Chapter 15 accident analyses were

$','d se se w d be a d

Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba evaluated using a decontamination th osed en n

P' Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York factor of 95%, and the offsite and onsite

,,(p gjs e,ey 3

n e tabics-County, South Caro!w' dose analyses would remala the same.

Based on the above considerations, Consequently, the proposed chan8cs are l

Date of amendment requests: April 23, the Commission proposes to determine of an administrative nature.

1990 (3 submittals) that the proposed amendments, for all in the event future changes aro Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendments would revise three systems discussed above, involve needed to this information in the FSAR, l

no significant hazards consideration.

the proposed changes would be the following Technical Specifications LocalPublic Document Room evaluated in accordance with the (TSs):(1) 4.9.4.2 regarding the location: York County Library,138 East process described in 10 CFR 50.59.

containment purge system, (2) 3/4.8.1.8 Black Street, Rock 11ill, South Carolina Under 10 CFR 50.59, proposed changes regarding the annulus ventilation 29730 determined by the licensee not to system, and (3) 3/4.7,7 regardin8 the Attorneyforlicensee:Mr. Albert Carr, inv Ive an unreviewed safety question auxiliary building filtered exhaust Duke Power Company,422 South may be made without prior Commission rystem.The associated Bases for TSs 3/

Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina approval. A report of such changes, 4.0.1.8 and 3/4.7.7 would also be revised.

28242 including a summary of the safety l

The revisions would change the carbon NRCProject Director: David B.

evaluation of each, would be submitted I

adsorber test method to ensure that the Matthews annually to the Commission.

futers for the above systems have a i

decontamination efficiency of greater Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. 50 Additionally, the licensee requires that l

than or equal to 95% under all 369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear all changes to the FSAR Chapter 16 anticipated operating conditions.The Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg receive Station Manager approval, and that, upon issuance, all revisions to laboratory test of carbon samples would County, North Carolina FSAR Chapter 10 be distributed to be conservatively tested at 95% relative Date of amendment request: April 24, holders of the Selected IJcensee humidity,instead of 70% which is 1990 Commitment Manual, including the currently required. Changing the Description of amendment request:

NRC.

allowable penetration for the carbon The proposed amendments would The Commission has provided beds to 0.71% instead of 1% would provide for the relocation of tabular standards for determining whether a improve the safety factor of the three listings of containment penetration significant hazards consideration exists ventilation systems discussed above.

conductor overcurrent protective as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The

20S$4 Federal Register / Vol 86, Ns. 95 / W:dnesday May 18, isso / Notices Commission's staff has reviewed the required; to the fuel oil storage acceptanos etter6e edit soeult in a em proposed changes to the TSs and finds requireements for EDGE to require r 5 tems. reduce imoeiswaa that the proposed changes would not:

33.000 gallons of fuel per EDG; to add between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS, and not (1) Involve a significant increase in additional testing requirements for the nduce the EDG miiabQlty, the probabuity or consequences of an fuel oil transfer pumps for Unit 1; and to Proposed change 2:nls proposed accident previously evaluated. Because delete the Unit 2 requiresnent for change woald miify the Unit 2 criteria the proposed changes would not affect multiple starts of the EDGE to test the for the 24. hour load test each 18 months the LEOS, SRs, or operability capacity of the air start system.The and add a similar requirement for Unit 1.

requirements of the subject devices or changes desired by the hoensee are ne licensee's evaluation of this the equipment they protect, there would contained in eight proposed changes to Proposed change is:

be no effect on a previously asalyzed the 'ISs as diamanad below.

D88 ProPesed change does not involve a accident.

Basisfor no significant signincent increase in the probabDity or (2) Create the possibility of a new or hazonis fios dedarminatione cmoquena of an accident pmiouly different kind of accident from any The Co==laaion has provided evaluated.no change modines test criteria for ee Unh EGe and adde he tut accident previously evaluated. Because standards for detar=ialan whether a there would be no changes in hardware significant hazards constileration exists po[

Yat

$X;e on or in the way the plant is operated, the (10 CPR 30.92(c)). A proposed either emit and they will continue to function potential for an unanalyzed accident amendment to an operating license for a as before to saltigets the consequences of an would not be created and no new failure facility involves no =taa*=at hazards accident. Our EDG vendar has concurred that modes would be introduced. -

considerations if operation of the facility the specified load ranges on the EDGE are (3) Involve a significant reduction in a in accordance with the proposed acceptable for an 18 month test, and wul not margin of safety. Because the existing amendment would not:(1) Involve a degrade their reliabuity.

TSs would continue to specify the same significant increase in the probability or This proposed change does not create the requirements with regard to operation consequences of an accident previously Poulbthty of a new or different kind of and surveillance of these devices and no evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of accident from any patously evaluated substantive change would be involved a new or different kind of accident from becaun me wehe elWe ponnystem will not be altered. h LDGe wn! respond with hardware or operating procedures, any accident previously evaluated; or (3)

'I would be and because future changee,th 10 CFR involve a significant reduction in a controlled in accordance wi margin of safety, nie propond change <. ion not involve a 50.59, existing margins of safety would The licensee's January 10,1990, signhant decrease in Se margin of safety not be decreased, submittal provided an evaluation of the becaun the EDCr ul continue to respond to Accordingly, the Commission proposed changes with respect to these mitigate analyzed transients and accidents as prcposes to determine that the three standards.

before. Our EDG vendor concurs that the appffeation for amendments involves no Proposed change 1:This proposed load ranges specified will not degrade EDG significant hazards consideration.

change would add steady-state voltage reliability and adding the 24-hour load test LocalPublic DocumeniRoom and frequency acceptance criteria to requirement will make Unit 1 and Unit 2 location Atkins Ubrary, Univers,ty of severalEDG SRs for both units, would testing requirements more consistent i

North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC add a requirement to energize Proposed change 3: This proposed Station). North Carolina 28223 emergency busses within 12 seconds, change would modify the criteria for the Attorneyforlicensee:Mr. Albert Carr' and would add a requirement to partial and fullload rejection test now Duke Power Company,422 South periodically verify the pressure in the Performed every 18 months for Unit 2.

Church Street, Chatlotte, North Carolina Unit 1 alt start receivers.The licensee and would add similar requirements for U

licens e's evaluation of this CProject Director David B.

[V ",*ted this proposed change as Matthews nie proposed change does not involve a nie proposed change does not involve a Georgia Power Company, Oglethrope signiacant incrum in the probabnity or significant increase in the probabuity or Power Corporation, Municipal Electric conuqmces of an accident previously consequences of as accident pmiously evaluated.The change adde acceptance evaluated. W revised loading criteria for Authority of Georgia, CitI of Dalton' 6'crhetta to periodic (mont,hly) etx. month, and both the full and partialload rejection tests Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-36 several to month EDG tats. maku the Unit 1 are more restrictive than those prewntly in Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 SRs consistent with the corraponding Unit 2 the Unit 2'I% and represent new j

and 2. Appling County, Georgia requirements and added a new SR for Unit 1.

requirements for Unit 1. Voltage and l

Date of amendment request: January The proposed change will result in more frequency crtteria are less strWent than 1

10 1990 c >mplete testing.The EDG's wili not be those currently in the Unit 2 TL. but I)escription of amendment #7ueste functionaDy altered and will continue to compatible with the STS. RG 1.9. and our function as designed. Adding these additional EDG vendor recommendations.%e EDGs The amendments would modify the test requirements and acceptance criteria will will continue to function as before to mitigate Technical Specifications (TSa) for Hatch not reduce the reliability of the Unit 1 and the consequences of an accident.

Units 1 and 2 to add a voltage and Unit 2 EDGE.

%Is proposed change does not create the frequency acceptance criteria for The propond change does not create h poselbihty of a new or diffent kind of l

emergency diesel generator (EDG) poutbility of a new or diffent kind of accident from any previously evaluated testing consistent with BWR/4 Standard accident from any previonely evaluated, because the on.eite electric power system Technical Specifications (STS) and with because the EDGE and on.eite electric power will not be altered. N EDGE will rapond Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.108 and RG 1.9; system will not be altmd.& EDGE will and function in the same manner as they do to add new surveillance requirements continue to nepond and function in the same currently.

Iname.

Dl8 proposed change does not involve a (SRs) to the Unit 1 TSs to make Unit 1 The proposed change does not involve a significant decrease in the margin of safety consistent with the guidance of RG significant decreen la the margin of safety becauw b EDGE will continue to mitigate 1.100; to modify surveillance testing of because the EDGE wul continas to respond as analyzed transients and soc 6 dents me before.

the awing EDG such that " double-before to mitigate analyzed tr==mients and Tating M

-te wul be similar on su s testing" of the EDG would not be accidents. Addag teetmg requirements and EDGE and consistant with industry standards

Federal Register / Vcl. S5, No. 95 / Wedn:sd:y, May 16, 1990 / Notices 20385 and recommendations, and not degrade EDG accident from any previously evaluated enhance the reliabihty of the EDG, and also reliability.

because the EDGs will respond and function aUows Cpc to follow NRC and vendor

=

Proposed change 4:hls p'roposed as before.

guidance.

change would modify the present Unit 2 Die ProPmd change dou not involve a

%e proposed change dou not create the specification requiring a re-start of the significant decrease in the margin of safety.

possibility of a new or different kind of EDG within 5 minutes following the 24-D [ts te analyzed m

d cci ts T accident from any previously evaluated hour load test, to allow the re-start test requirements will be similar for all five EDGs, because the 1B EDG will still function and to be performed immediately following and will not decrease the reliability of the respond in the same manner.

any running of the EDG which raises the EDGs.

The proposed change does not involve a machine to normal operating Proposed change 6:This proposed significant decreau in the margin of safety I

tempersture. A similar requirement change would add a number of SRs to because the 1B EDG will respond to mitigate would be added to the Unit 1 TSs.The the Unit 1 TSs to make the Unit 1 TSs transients and accidents as it does currently.

licensee's evaluation of this proposed consistent with the Unit 2 TSs. The

%.1B EDG will be tested throughly [ sic] to change is as follows:

change also would delete a present Unit ensum high reliability.Taking controllocally ne proposed change does not involve a 1 requirement to verify load shedding of for brief periods of time aDows GPC to test t

significant increase in the probability or specific non essential 600-volt loads, the EDG in a manner prescribed by the NRC consequences of an accident previously l

evalusted.The EDGs will function as befo e The licensee's evaluation of this and the EDG vendor.

l-to nut e analyzed transients and pro sed change is as follows:

Proposed change 8: his proposed T proposed change does not involve a change would delete the existing Unit 2 The proposed change does not create the significant increase in the probabuity or TS that requires the EDG to be started possibiu of a new or different kind of 8 "9"*". C" 'I '" * *Cid'"' P"VI "*I 7

accident rom any previously evaluated evaluated Except for deleting one specific five times in a row to verify the capacity of the air start receivers.The licensee's because the revised Unit 2 TS will still verify grefen tfthWJ i

does not evaluation of this proposed change is as j

that the EDG can start and load properly when warm. The current testing requirement modify the EDCs in either unit. ne change follows:

i adds consistency to the testing regulrements The proposed change does not involve a be.a if e f 11 r t lthe for alllive EDGs, Deletion of existing Unit 1 significant increase in the probability of [ sic]

24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> load test would have to be rerun.nis TS 3.9.AJ.d and 4.9.AJ.d is justified because consequences of an accident previously constitutes a new tasting requirement for Unit the requirement does not exist in the Unit 2 evaluated. Deleting the requirement will 1 and therefore a conservative change.

TS. or in the STS, and proper load shedding reduce the number of unnecessary EDG tests.

This proposed change does not involve a of the 800N loads will be verified during the significant decrease in the margin of safety I*sf

• eq d by m fled Unit 1 SR The primary reason for the test is to verify because the EDGs will continue to respond as adequate sizing of the air start system. This is before to mitigate transients and accidents.

e oe a

en th' not expected to change.

Re utrements for all 5 EDGs will be simuar gg g

d The proposed change does not create the accident rom any previously evaluated possibility of a new or different kind of in ei ase es ill n t be because the EDGs will still function and accident from any previously evaluated abusive. EDG reliability will continue to be reso nd in the same manner.

because the EDGs will function and respond

-The proposed change does not involve a in the same manner.

acceptable Proposed change 5: This proposed significant decrease in the margin of safety The proposed change does not involve a change would modify the TSs for both because the EDGs will respond and mitigate significant decrease in the margin of safety lh y because the EDGs wul respond to mitigate units to require a minimum volume of

• " $t. e ew SRs riu not d d

cu e 33,000 gallons of fuel oil per EDG and reliabuity and wiu make the testing of all five

*"'I'" * "d * **Id'" 'h 'Yd """'"'IY' would further modify'.he Unit 1 TS to EDGs consistent.

he capacity of the air stad system is not require a minimum of 900 gallons of fuel Proposed change 7:This proposed expected to change unless modifications are oilin each EDG day tank, consistent change would modify the testing pe&nmd so b Ms not mmaHy with the present Unit 2 requirement. For requirements for the 1B EDG (swing u cessa m both units, a note would be added to the diesel) such that it is tested on the same The Commission's staff has TSs allowing the day tank fuel oil frequency as the other EDCs. Since the considered the proposed changes and volumes to be less than 900 gallons for ID EDG supports both units, it presently agrees with the licensee's evaluations periods of up to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> during is subjected to double testing as with respect to the three standards.

verification of fuel oil transfer pump required by the TSs for each unit.The On this basis, the Commission has flow.Thelicensee's evaluation of this licensee's evaluation of this proposed determined that the requestod proposed change is as follows:

change is as follows:

amendments meet the three standards This proposed change does not involve a Thie proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or significant increase in the probabihty or and, therefore, has made a proposed s

consequences of an accident previously consequences of an accident previously determination that the amendment evaluated. Requiring all five EDG oil tanks to evaluated. Unnecessary testing of the 1D EDG application does not involve a contain 33,000 gallons of oil and adding a SR will be avoided, provided the purpose of the significant hazards consideration.

to Unit 1 on fuel transfer pump operabibty test is primarily to demonstrate the EDG l.ocalPublicDocumentRoom and day tank volume are conserystive capabuity to start and carry and reject loads.

changes. Allowing the associated EDG to be Many of the 18-month tests added to the Unit location: Appling County Public 1.ibrary, considered operable during pump flow testing 1 TS (see Proposed Changes 16) will have to 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia will not increase the probabdity of be performed every is months for each unit, 31513 consequences of an accident significantly effectively meaning the iD will be tested Attorneyforlicensee: Ernest L Blake, since the alloted [ sic) time is short (4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />),

twice every to months. The 1D EDG will still Jr.. Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and the EDG would still function upon receipt of a be tested at least as frequenUy as the other Trowbridge,2300 N Street, NW.,

start signal, and the testing improves the four EDGs. and will continue to respond and confidence that the fuel transfer pump la function as designed. Allowing control to be Washington, DC 20037.

functioning properly, taken locaUy for while warming up and NRCPiv/ectDirector: David B.

This proposed change does not create the barring over the diesel engine is justified hiatthews poestbuity of a new or different kind of because the time period is brief, the practice

r q

l i

20356 Feder:1 Register / Vcl. 55, Nr. 95 / Wednesday, M:y 10, 1990 / Notices Georgia Power Company, Oglethorps core isolation cooling (RCIC) systems, 1.nie change does not involve a Power Corporation, Municipal Electric and specify a range of pressures that significant incmase in h pr6 ability or b Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, must be adhered to for the test consequenose of an accident previously Georgia Dodset Nos. Elk 321 and 56 306, perfrrmance; and (10) snake a number of evaluawdmewent. des w he tnoperable Edwin 1. Hatch Neclear Plant, Unite 1 purely administrativa, editorial changes d*e"hsk

• h**"

d g,,

h and 2, Appling County, Georgia to the Unit 2 TSs.

probabihty of ae-e= to a safety eyetem Date of amendment request: March 2, Basisforproposed no significant du to a opersous us ike win be mammlsed.

i

1ggo, hazards consideration determination:

einoe plant pereoamel usu take au neceuery Description of amendment request:

The Commission has provided actions to rutore the inoperable channel as The amendments would modify the standards for determining whether a we es practical. Also, the Limiting Technical Specifications (TSs) for Units significant hazards consideration exiats

$"$dQ*'g*,uos in I

1 och cal 9

1 and 2 to:(1) allow a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period of (10 CMt 50.92(c)). A proposed CCcs sabeyotems under all conditions for time for Unit s to meet the requirements amendment to an operating license for a which these coolins caPabihties m requimd.

for single-loop operation (SLO) before facility involves no significant hazards 2.This change does not create the entering the 12 hout shutdown limiting consideration if operation of the facility possibility of a aew or different kind of conditions for operation [LCO);(2) allow in accordance with the proposed accident frees any seddent previously placing an inoperable channel of a amendment would not:(1) Involve a evalmted, baceuse no new anodes of plant required Unit 1 Core and Containment significant increase in the pmbability or opmtie an introduced and no physical Cooling System (CCCS) subsystem in consequences of an accident previously modifications to plant design are being made.

the tripped condition or declaring the evaluated; or (2) Create the poulbility of jjd kNb8 l a

d associated CCCS inoperable within 1 a new or different kind of accident from Unit 1 PSAR Section 4.y (Reactor Com hour: (3) change the Unit 1 definition of any accident previously evalusted; or (3) Isolation Cooling 9ystem). Section 6.0 (Com Surveillance Requirement to indicate involve a significant reduction in a Standby Cooling Systems), and Section y.4 that performance of a surveillance margin of safety.

(Cm Standby cooitne systems control and requirement within the specified

%e licensee's March 2,1990, instrumentation). placing one inoperable surveillance interval constitutes submittal provided an evaluation of the channel of one trip system in the tripped l

compliance with the operability proposed changes with respect to these condition will not significantly reduce any requirement for an LCO; (4) change a three standards.

margin of ufety. No sineb control failure wfD number of Unit l'ISs and associated proposed change 1:This proposed ovhng the c th adeque fm Bases to delete the requirement to change would allow Unit 1 a 24-hour Proposed change 3:%is proposed perform additional surveillances when it period of time to meet the requirements change would eliminate the requirement is determined that the associated for single-loop operation before entering to erform additional surveillances on

' refundant components and subsystems redundant components and/or the 12. hour shutdown 140. The ni 1 Tabe to spe yt one h nge is as ow b e %e pro ed e 1

operable channel per trip system is 1.nla change does not involve a i 11 wing evaluation of this change:

i required instead of the two channels significant increase in the probability or l

now spect!!cd, modify the " Remarks" consequences of an accident. previously

fe,",

roba i$ty or the d

ee section to Indicate that a trip signal will evaluated, because only operation of the consequences of an accident previously result in actuation of the Main Control recirculation system and equipment in a evaluated, becaum equipment operation is Room Environmental Control System mode that has been previously analyzed is not affected, only testas requirements.

(MCRECS)la the pressurization mode all wed. It sh uld also be noted thut, prior t Deleting additioca! eurveillance requirements and not in the isolation mode, and appr val of c ntineous St.O. the Unit 1 and due to inoperable components and Una 2 Technical spectacauons anowed modify TS Table 4.2-8 to delete Logic subsystems eliminates unnecessary System Functional Test (LSFT) 6 and

$[w"thc u t 1i any coUn nUto challenges to the mdundant components and subsystems usociated with the inopenble change LSFT 5 to MCRECS Control measures.nis change is consistent with the c mponents. In addition, the normal periodic Room Pressurization Mode Actuation; InVR/4 SIS.

(6) delete a number ofindividual 2.nis change does not create the e[n u

'a d o

on surveillance requirements for pumps possibility of an accident or malfunction of a availability of redundant componente and end valves, and change testing different kind from any previously analyzed, subsystems.

frequencies and post maintenance becam no new modes of plant operation are 2.This change does not create the testing requirements in accordance with I"" d"**d' '"d " "'" ***'d*nt types can possibilitfrom any previously evaluated.

of a new or different kind of accident testing required by American Society of 3 argins of safety are not significantly Mechanical Engineers ( ASME) Section reduced by this change. because safety es %anwahn an com n new m XI ursuant to to CFR 50.55a(g);(7) analysis assumptions are not affected in any h,"nt I b

de ma e a number of purely administrative way. This change to the specification

3. Margins of safety are not significantly editorial changes to the Unit 1 TSs and requirement is consistant with the Unit 21s nduced by this change, because safety associated Bates; (8) modify the Unit 1 approved in Amendment 77.

analysis assumptions are not affected in any TSs 3.5.J.2.b through 3.5.J.2.e ta delete Proposed change 2:This proposed wey.This proposed change is consistent with any reference to the diesel generators change would allow an inoperable the STS for eyetem operations with having to be operable and add channel of a required CCCS subsystem inope*able components.

information requiring the other Plant to be placed in the tripped condition Proposed change 4:Tlk noposed Service Water (PSW) components to be without declaring the associated CCCS change would delete requirements to operable: (9) modify Unit 1 TSs 4.5.D.1.b subsystem inoperable, provided at least perform additional surveillances when and 4.5.E.1.c to clarify where the one trip system is maintained with the associated redundant components and/

pressure of the steam supply is to be minimum number of channels operable.

or systems have been determined to be measured for testing the high pressure The licensee's evaluation of this change inoperable.The licensee's evaluation of coolant injection (IIPCI) and reactor is as follows:

this change is as follows:

w.-.

Federal Regleter / Vol 55. No. 95 / Wedn:sday. May 16,1990/ Nrtices 20357 1.m change does not levolve a Section XI. The licensee's evaluetion of or safet analysis - -. A roe are not elsnificant baasese la the probebutty ne these changes is as follows:

chnge marsi.w of safety will not be consequences of an accident previously 1.This change does not involve a sign $ candy reduced evaluated, because equ!; ment operation le algnificant inwease in the probability of Proposed change 9:This proposed not affected, only testing requiraments.he occurrence or the====quences of an change would clarify where the pressure proposed emendment reduces unnecessary accident previously evalua ted, because challenges to redundant componente, thus equipment operation le not affected, only of the steam supply is to be measured resulting in unneceenary wear and tear due to testing requireme'its. %e only applicable for testing the HpCI and RCIC turbines, operettng the coniponente in excese of the surveillance requiremente are those nonnally and would specify a range of pressctes normally scheduled surve!1tana== ne only performed in occordance with ASME Section required for conducting the testa. The applicable surveillance requiremente are XI, pursuant to to Q1t to.saa. For the ROC licensee provided the following those normally performed in accordance with System, erJeting Unit 1 Specification 4.511.c evaluation of this change:

ASME Section XI. pursuant to 10 QR So.55e.

requires a p low test every 3 months.

1.His change does not involve a 2.nle change does not create the

2. nie noe does not create the significant increase in the probability or possibihty of an accident or malfunction of a possibility of an accident or malfunchon of a conseq==a== of an acc6 dent previously di'ferent kind from any prmoealy ana!ysed.

diffarent kind from any previously analyzed.

evaluated, because the change clarmee because equipment operation le not aflected because equipment operation is not affected.

Tedmical Specifications in'ormstion whict le Thus, no new modes of plant operation ara Dus. no new modes of plant operation are already provided in the FSAR. This chantte introduced, and no new modes of failure are introduced, and no new modee of falhrre are will not altar a previously evaluated occident created.

created.

in any way.

3. Margins of safe *y are not algnificantly

3. Margine of safety are not significantly 2.This change does not create the reduced as a result of this change, becouee reduced by this change, because equipsient possibility of a new or diffarent kind of equipment operabihty le edequately assured operability le adeqeately neoured by accident from any acr%nt previously by inservice inspection / testing in accordance inservice inspection /tseting in accordance evaluated, becanec equipment operetion is with ASME Section XI requirementa, with ASME Section XI testmg requirements, not affected. He change only clarifice pursuant to 10 QR 50.55a.

ursuant to 10 GR 50L55a. In addition, valve

{meuPe are assured due to the addition of a information presented in Technical Proposed change 5:This proposed Specifications to amoure equipment is change would change Unit 1 TS Table

" [$# '",* *$o'n' I

3.2-8 to indicate that only one operable F.oposed [ange 7:%is proposed

{perated ropedy thus, no new modes of P

t prop,

1*[,*in, Isafety are not alanificantly channelis required per trip system.

change would make editorial changes to reduced by this change, because safety 3,

would revise the Remarks, section to indicate that a trip signal will result in the Unit l 'ISs. The licensee provided analysis assumptions are not affected to any the following evaluation:

way, and the performance of the equipment actuation of the MCRECS in the 1.This change does not involve a assumed in safety analyele is not affected.

pressurization mode and not the significant increase in the probability or isolation mode, and would revise TS cor.aequences of an accident pnviously Proposed change 10e This proposed Table 4.2-8 to delete I.SFT 6 and change evaluated, because the change is change would make editorial changes to the title ofISFT 5. The licensee administrative or editorial in nature and will the Unil 2 TSs. The licensee evaluated in any way a previously evaluated

%6 e Mows-provided the following evaluation of this a

change:

1.This change does not involve a 2.This chanae doce not create the increase in the probab!!f ty or consequences significant increase in ti.e probability or possibility of a new or different Lind of of an accident previously evaluated, because consequences of an accident previously accident from any eccident previously the change was made for clarity and is evaluated he change reflects current design evaluated, because equipment opera tion le adminietretive in nature. He changes will and does not aher a previously evaluated not affected hus, no new modee of failure not alter a previously evaluated accident in are created.

accident in any way.The Technical any way, Spect6 cations Bases and the PSAR clearly

3. Margins of safety are not signiScanti 2.This change does not crs ite the indicate the required operable channela reduced by this change, becanoe these safety possibility of a new or differ, ' Lind of should be "1" rather than "2". In Table 318, analysia assumptione or equipment accident from any accident previously the change in wording of LSTT 5 from the performance are not affected in any way, evaluated, because equipment operation la Control Room isolation Mode is acceptable, Proposed change 8:This proposed not effected Rus, no new mode of failure is change would delete references to the created diesel generator havin6 to be operable

3. Margins of safety are not significantly pr onely de e t p ant gn per Amendment 156 to the plant Hetch Unit 113.

from Unit 1 TSa 3.512.b through 3.5.l.2.e reduced by this change, because safety in addition, the deletion of INT 6 from Table and would add information to require analysi8 ammptions are not affected in any 4a8 is also administrative, since it le now operability of the other PSW

"'Y' covered within the scope of1.SFT 5.

components.The licenace evaluated this The Commission's staff has 2 This change does not create the proposed change as follows:

considered the proposed changes and possibility of a new or different kind of 1.This change does uct involve a agrees with the licensee's evaluations accident from any accident previously significant increase in the pobability or with respect to the three standards.

evaluated, because equipment operation is consequences of an occident previously On this basis, the Commission has not affected. Thus, no new modes of failure evaluated. Diesel generator operabnity la determined that the requested are created.

assured by Specification 3/4.9. and PSW

3. Margina of safety are not significantly reduced by this change, because safety component operability is escured by amendments meet the thra Mandards Specification 3.512.

and, therefore, has made a proposed analysle assumptions are not affected in any 2.nis change does not create tLe determination that the amendment way. The change le admiattative in nature, possibility of a new or different kind of application does not involve a Proposed change 6:This proposed accident imm any socident previously significant hazards consideration.

change would delete TS surveillance evaluated, because e:;ulpment operation is LocoIPublicDoctanenf Roont requirements for some pumpa and not a eted.Thus, no new mode of failure is locofion: Appling County Public Library, valves and change test frequencies and

"'y,;gine of safety are not significantly301 City Hall Drive, Baxley. Georgia 3

post maintenance testing requirements reduced by this change, because safety 315t3 for equipment that is nonnally tested analysis assumptions are not affected in any Attorneyforlicensee: Ernest L Blake, and inspected in accordanm with ASME way. Therefore, since equipment performance Jr.. Esqatre, Shaw, Pittman. Potts and

20858 Federal Register / Val. 55, Ns. 95 / Wedmsday, May 16, 1990 / Nstices

..__.._ m m.......

_. -. ~. ~.

Trowbridge,2300 N Stmet, NW.,

review of the proposed amendment amendment does not involve a Washington. DC 20057.

Indicates that:

significant hatards considerstion.

NRCProject Discior: Devid B.

(1) Operation of the facility in Locolpublic Documer:t Room Matthews accordance with the proposed location: Apphng County Public Library.

amendment would not involve a 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia Georgia Power r'mmpany, C 'IElecEc signincant increase in the probability or 31513.

Pown Corprauca, MM Aubrity d Georgia, City of Dehen, consequences of an accident previously Attorneyforlimnsee: Erneet L Blake, evaluated.

Deckat No. 80 886, Edwin L Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, potts and Experience shows that the ext'ansion Trowbridge,2300 N Street, NW.,

Nuclear Plant, Unit 3, Appung of surveillance intervals enhances safety Washington, DC 20037.

by removing the need to perform a NRCProject Director: Devid B.

Date of amendment request Apr011.

surveulance during plant conditions Matthews 1990 unsuitable to its performance, such as Description of amendment request during transient plant conditions or Houston Lighting & power Company, ne prop,osed amendment would revise when safety systems are out of service City Puhuc Service Board of San a surveillance requirement in Technical because of ongoing surveulance or Antonio, Central Power and Light Specification (TB) 4.0.2 by deleting the maintenance activities. Iamiting the Cesapany, City of Austin, Texas. Docket requirement that the combined time maximum combined interval to 3.25 Nos. so ass and 88 499 South Texas interval for any three consecutive times the interval for three consecutive Project, Units 1 and 3 Matagorda surveulance intervals is not to exceed intervals does not increase safety County, Texas 3.25 times the specified surveillance because extending surveillance 28%

Date of amendment squest: October interval. ne revised TS 4.0.2 would presents a small risk in contrast to the 25,1989 continue to requim that "Each altemative of a forced shutdown or Description of amendment request:

Surveillance Requirement shall be performance during unsuitable plant Technical Specification Table 4.3-1 performed within the specified time conditions.This position on the safety (Reactor Trip System lastrumentation interval with a maximum allowaale impact of removing the 3.25 limit is Surveulance Requirements) Function extension not to exceed 25% of the supported by industry experience and surveillance interval. Associated Bases documented in GL 80-14. Since the risk Unit 2a requires month) and quarterly channel calibration for th incore to 4.0.2 would be revised accordingly, posed by this change is less than the em & 8 ux n**

8 p0M Basis forproposedno significant risk associated with the existing ihnit, horards considerotion determination opera in accordance with the yb Th h ensa has Pro d

On August 21.1989, the NRC issued propose change does not involve a that the survedlance tests be based on Generic latter (GL) 89-14 "Line-Item significant increase in the[entrobabdity or consequences of an acci effective full power days (EFPD) instead Impmvements in Technical Specifications-Removal of the 3.25 Limit previously analyze

'I "*I"."d*# d*Y

on Extending Surveulance Intervals."

(2) Use of the modified specification Basseforpro no significant The GL provided guidance to licensees would not create the possibility of a new hosards conss emtion determination and applicants for the preparation of a or different kind of accident from e-v ne Conunission has provided hcense amendment request to accident pmviously evaluated.

standards for determining whether a implement a une. item improvement in Removing the 3.25 hmit on increasing significant hazards consideration exists TSs to remove the 3.25 limit on surveulance intervals 25% reduces the as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed extending surveillance intervals. The GL possibility of a surveulance interval amendment to an operating license for a provided an alternative to the forcing a shutdown, or forcing the faculty involves no significant hasards requirements of TS 4.0.2 to remove an performance of a surveillance during consideration if operation of the facility unnecessary restriction on extending unsuitable plant conditions. Its removal in accordance with the proposed surveillance requirements and to thereby reduces the risk associated with amendment would not:(1)lavolve a provide a benefit to safety when plant either alternative. it does not change significant increase in the probability or conditions are not conducive to the safe plant equipment configuration or consequences of an accident previously conduct of surveulance requirements. By operation and is administrative in evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of letter of April 11,1990, Georgia Power nature. Hence. the change does not a new or different kind of accident from Company responded to GL 8014 and create the possibuity of a new or any accident previously evaluated; or (3) mquested a license amendment different kind of accident from any involve a sipificant reduction in a consistent with the CL guidance.

accident previously evaluated.

margin of safety. The licensee provided he Commission has provided (3) Use of the modified specification an analysis that addressed the above standards for determining whether a would not involve a significant three standards in the amendment significant hazards consideration exists reduction in a margin of safety.

application.

(10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed Removing the 3.25 limit on increasing The proposed change does not involve amendment to an operating hcense for a surveillance intervals 25% has been a significant increase in the probability faculty involves no significant hazards shown by industry experience, as or consequences of an accident considerstion if operation of the facility documentet. in GL 8944, to decrease previously evaluated. De proposed in accordance with a proposed risk when omtrasted with the change involves the frequency of the amendment would not:(t)lavolve a alternative actions potentially single point comparison and calibration.

significant increase in the probabdity or compelled by allowing it to remain in With the proposed change the single consequences of an accident previously effect. Because risk is reduced by this point comparison and calibration would evaluated:(2) Create the possibility of a proposed ch.nge, it does not involve a be performed on the basis of days at new or different kind of accident from significant reduction in the margin of effective full power versus calendar any accident previously evaluated, or (3) safety.

days above 15% RTP or 75% ltTP. EFPD Involve a significant reduction in a Accordingly, the Commiss'on are representative of core burnup and margin of safety. The Commission's proposes to determine that the proposed changes in the flux profile, and it is the e

l I

l Federe! Register / Vol 65. No. 95 / Wednesday. May 16, 1990 / Notices 20359 l

change in the Bux profila that prismatrily Iname hashisen Potser Camupany, supported by Canarte latter ares and Rev. 4 l

streets alibratino and dictate when the Dodet Nee, gu13 and BB gst Donald d se Siamlard T/r* Thudstia of a T/S l

excare neutron detector single point C. Ceek Nedser Plant, Undt Nea.1 and 3A4 exemption to Unit 1 T/S 3.3.3.5 is 1

rv=nparison and onlibration should be

2. Bentsu Caumty, amaag

,yT

• ]8 j

i performed. Since this dange in Dole ofomendments sequ 4t August in the Unit 1 T/ss that wee corrected in later fregnancy is a usare accurate indiostion 30.Igge versions of the Standard T/Ss. it to therefore j

of core burnup and when the Description ofomendmenks rogueste our belief that any increase in the probabutty e

dx. and calibration should be ne proposed massantenante revise the or consegesname et a prnteesty evaluate 3 i

performed, the consequana== of en Cook Technical Specifiestions (TS) to accident, or a redmotion in a mars a of safety.

O see con s.

edi tre of accident from any previouslY l

evaluated. ne only accident possible through t se and nerefore, the staff proposes to I

t on so it determine that the requested changes do l

lavolves a reactivity anomaly and the resulting detection of this anmanly by reDects b new changa and better not involve e algn!$ cant hamards consideration.

the excore detectors.The proposed explains the rationale behind Sectio:3.0 change does not involve a change in any and 4.03.De three specific problems LomNic Document Room addressed by Generic 1Atter 37 00 are:

location:Maude Preston Palenske setpoints for the trips generated fmm the (a) Unnecessary restrictions of mode Memorial ubrary,500 Market Street, St.

excm neutron detectom.Ma pmposal changes (changes involving TS 3.0.4): (b) }0seph, Michigan 49085.

change only the f;equacy of Unnecessary shutdowns caused by Attorneyfor//censee: Gerald performing the single potnt comparison inadvertant surpassing of surveillance Charnoff. Esq., Shew, Pittman, Potts and and the calibration for the excore intervals and (c) enafHets between Trowbridge,2300 N Street, NW.,

detectors. This change will result in the specifications 4.0.3 and 4.a4 related to Weshington DC 20037.

single point comparison and the mode changes.

NRCProject Director:Dominic C.

calibration balag performed on a Bosisforp edno algnificant Dilanni. Acting.

frequency more closely related to wre hazards consi tion determination 10 lowa Gectric Ught and Poww

p. y, r

bumup and the resulting Dux profile CFR 50.92 states that a pmpond Docket No,gN31 Duane Arnold Easrgy change.

amendment will not involve a siguuant Cente, uun County, Iowa The proposed change does not involve har.ards consideration if the proposed a significant reduction in the margin of amendment does not:

Date ofomendmentinquest January safety, na proposed change will allow (I) Involve a significant increase in the 5,1990 the single point comparison and the probability or consequences of an Descriptian of amendment request:

celibration to be performed on a basta of accident previously evaluated; or ne proposed amendmemt would revise EFPD which is related to core burnup (10 Create the possibility of a new or the Duane Arnold Energy Center and the change in Dux profile. This will different kind of accident from any Technical Specifications (DAEC He) to allow the excore neutron detectors accident previously evaluated; or eliminate the need for requesting cycle-single point comparison and calibration (111)Inv i e a significant reduction in specific changes to the Es for future inquency to be based on the relation to ce evaluated the in ce with the guidance core benup and the change in Dux proposed amendment against the provided in NRC Generic lAtter (CL g6-profile which are the effects that standards of to CPR 50.92, and has 18, the proposed revision requires the actually change the calibration. Basing determined the following:

use of NRC-approved methodologies for the surveillance on core burunp is more Criterion f calculating the numeric values of cycle-reflective of the changes occurring.

Although the proposed changa relax some dependent parameters.%ese There are no setpoint change present T/S requiremente. the changes are parameters will be deleted imm the TSs e pgggne and included in a formal report entitled, ter.m and 4

awociated with b proposed change.

j on a,

he staff has reviewed the licensee's 3.0.4== puan to Unit 1 T/S 3.3.3.5 le

" Core Operating umits Report." This no significant hazanis consideration consistent with the Unit 2 T/Se sad the report will be defined in Section 1.0 of determination. Based on the review and Standard T/Ss. and will corset an oversight the TSs and requirements for its the above discussions, the staff in the Unit 1 T/Se that was corrected in later preparation will be included in Sectioa proposed to detennine that b pmposed versions of the Standard T/5s. It is therefore 6.0, Administrative Controls. Copies of changes do not involve a significant our behet that any inemen in the pmbabliity this report will be submitted to the NRC hazards considerstion.

[cc"iden7ar"e"re tio7tn upon issuance,in addition, other a safety' lecc/Public Document Rooms would not be etsnif6 cant.

administrative changes are proposed.

Locotion:Wharton County junior criterion 2 Basisforproposedno significant College, J. M. Hodges Learning Center, The proposed changes do not involve any hazards consideration detenninotion:

h P ysical changes to the plant or any changes The Commission has provided 91t Boling Highway Wharton Texas t the plant's operating configurations.

standards for determining whether a 77488 and Austin Public Ubrary,810

^

Cuadalupe Street, Austin, Texas 78701 c,a."ric N a*7 OS by significant hazards consideration exists Re t

Attorneyforlicensee Jack R.

Standard T/Se.nue we beueve that the as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed Newman, Esq., Newman & Holtzinger, proposed changes will not create the amendment to an operating license for a P.C.,1815 L Street. NW.* Washington, possibuity of a new or different kind of

• far:ility involves no significant hazards DC 20036 ecrAdent from any, e 4 evalueled.

consideration if operation of the facility Criserian s in accordance with a proposed NRCProject Director: Frederick J.

Ahhoush the proposed changes relax some amendment would not (1)lavolve a Hebdon i

pruent T/S regairements, the changes are significant increase in the probability or l

l

30300 Fedeeel Regleter / Vd. 58, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 16, 1990 / Natices r

consequences of an accident previously reqube that MAPtJ1CR,lJIGR and MCpR be amendment would not:(1) Involve a evaluated. (2) Create the possibility of a detenenned deny (at power levels ans) and significant increase in the probability or new or different kind of accident from MCPR must edl be determined after poww consequences of an accident previously or es euen whic cana8ect l

any accident previously evaluated, or (3) evaluated; or (2) Cmate the poselbility of Involve a significant roduction in a g E,3 ;,j, M,,,,, g,,,,,,

a new or different kind of accident from 1

' p g a g, any accident previamly evaluated: or (3) margin of safety.

_ m > m-go, ~-

in The licensee has provided the trenaient eTaalyens.

Involve a significant reduction in a following anal of no significant (3)he energin of safety wul not be margin of safety,in accordance with the I

hazards consi tion unlag the affected by the muurval of the 6 J, * '

requirements of10 CPR 80.02, the Commission's standards, petameter limits from the ille boosess the licensee has submitted the following no

)

(

(1)N proposed change wGl not involve proposed===ad=aat still mquires operetion significant hasards evaluation:

l any signifncant increase in the probability or within the acre umite determined by use of

1. Does the proposed license===admant consequences of an accident previously NRC. approved reload design me* :'" J involve a significant inesase in the evaluated because the removal of the cycle.

N appropriate actions to be taken when or probability or consequences of an ac ident specific parameter halte from the DABC if halte are violated remain ~ ^M previously evaluated?

Technical Specificatione has no inDuence on The development of the limite for futum gralvorlon the consequences or the prol slauty of a reloads will continue to conform to these N addinonallanguage provides previously evalma'ed accident. N oycle-methode described in NRC. approved clartScation as to the intent of the term speciBc_pter 'imite, al. bough not in the dae==antation. In addition, a to CPR 80Je

'1astrumentauan Cahbestics" for those Ille, wul continue tc, g,4y and be followed Safety Evaluation will be done for each channele with R1De and thermocouples se is the operation of the DAEC. The proposed future mined to assure that operation within the sonetas element. De f '"r, i

s.mendment wiu require the same actions to the,,ia e Mfic parameter hmits will not described eneume that any credible failure c'r to taken when or if hmite are exceeded as involve a significant reduction in a margin of aleadjustment of the tengerature channelis are required by the current Technical safety.

detected and corrected. nle methodology is I

8pecificatione.

N other changes are administrative only consistent with generalindustry practice and rach accident previously addressed wul and cannot affect the margin of eefety.

hu been previously mviewed and found continue to be examined with mopect to The NRC staff has reviewed the acomptable by the NRC staff on another chages la cycle-epecinc parametere, which hcensee's proposed no significant docket. Ar, such, the does not are ootained from application of NRC hazards dete,,rmination a.g.hwefm bnd agrees with represent a modincation the calibration approved reload design methodol es,to gg y

practices hunded by b Technical xamina be p

n et en involve a 8'

i cidu performed in accordance with the significant hazards consideration.

2.b, the proposed license amendment requirements of to CFR s0Jo. ensures thet LocalPublicDocument floom erente the poselbility of a new or different future reloads will not involve an increase la locofion: Cedar Rapids Public Library.

kind of accident from any accident previously the probability or conseq==a= of an 800 First Stree t, SA Cedar Rapids, lows evaluated,t tecident provtously evt.'uated.

g g,,j,, j,

• • [vhed fw Attorneyforlicenseet jack Newman, N yroposed===ad>===t only adde a

,,,,gg,,,,

ga improved clarlt'inone of the surwknee Esquire, Kathleen H. Shea, Esquire, statement to the deanition of " Instrument y

requimmente are changed.N deletion of the Newman and Holtzinger, tels L Street, Wibmuon" to clarify he tenn inetminent Calibrauon for those channels with RTDs and mquirement to determine MCPR every 12 NW., Washington, DC 20036.

hours during a IJmiting Control Rod Pattern NRCProjectDinactor: John N.

),"*,,*g *g%Yg',,, *,*gj, D

cchieves consistency with the IJiGR and Hannon.

and @ had t.

e requim Nebraska Public Power District, Docket

• quipmen attemd.%e ruleseted change that MCpRb determined dauy and after No. so.ast, Cooper Nuclear Station, does not emem any new mode of plant dd P***M'7 changes la level or distribution which Nesnaba County, Nobreaka fj,**gg,*,*,*,$*"g*",

$,,q

["y* g U$

Date of amendment request: Apr0 3, a den previously ey ted.

Control Rod Pattern.Therefore, the 1990 "i nina==t in tlw margin of safety?

Surwniance Requirement that has been Description of amendment request:

f removed le unnecessary and mdundant to This amendment would add a statement ne safety margin le maintained stace me

• • ' I other requiremente.

to Technical Specification 1J.2 that

~

g k owwnt The SurvetHanoe Requirement changes and reads " Calibration ofinstrument Et of the T=chaient Speci8 cations.N the changes to the Bases are adminletrative channels with resistance temperature proposed====d==at does not alter a7ety in netum and cannot significantly inesaae detector (RTD) or thermocouple sensors plant operating setpoints or uniting sa he Pmbabah w caemi*** ** I shall consist of verification of system settings and does notinvolw a g g hccidm.

operability of the sensing element and signinemat reduction in the margin of safety,

- - m, paranwere wul how no Met'on he adjustment, as necessary, of the licensee e=ehgvious discussion, the Based on the probabutty or conempmenes d any accidents. remaining tdjustable devices in the

- _ that the proposed b,,,i,. t parameters are calculeled chanel."

amendment request does not involve a using NRC approved _ M"7 and wil?

Sosisforproposedno significoni significaat increase in the probability of be available in the CORE OpBRATINO hosords consloerotion determlact/on a new or different kind of accident from IJMfrS REPORT.no T=

b Com=laalan has provided any accident previously evaluated; nor 8 ociScenceswulcomumtorequin standards for determining whether a create the possibuity of a new or P

operanon wtein he stand Deus and significant hazards consideration exists different kind of accident from any be uken when a if h

am M as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed accident previously evaluated; nor N changes m te surveulence amendment to an operating license for a involve a significant reduction la the se and Bases an administrative facili involves no significant hasards required margin of safety. The NRC staff

=_d_cannot cream the possibthty d a new or an consi tion if operation of the facility has reviewed the licensee's no d Herent kind of aaandaa' N TSs stui in accordance with the proposed signincaat haaerds onesiderations a

---

a

~.u-.-

,.s...w.-

-a,~

---~,,..,.,._--a,,

,.,s, w,,...,,m.,.ea-,n---

federal Reidater / Vol. 55, ND. 95 / Wednisday, M2y 16,1990 / Nstices 20361 determination and agrees with the Basis forproposedno significant

1. The current list of initiating signals licenese's analysis.The staff has, 1mords consideration determinctlant in Table 317 is contained in the list of therclore, made a proposed The Commission has provided parameters that initiate a scram in determination that the licensee's request standards for determining whether a Table 3.6.2a. All reactor scram signals, does not involve a significant hazards significant hazards consideration exists automatic or manual, initiate closure of consideration.

as stated in 10 CFR 80.92. A proposed the scram system vent and drain valves.

LocalpublicDocument Room amendment to an operating license for a brefore, the more concise terminology J

location: Auburn Public Library,118 facility involves no significant hazarda

" automatic or manual reactor scram" is 15th Street, Auburn, Nebraska 68305 consideration if operation of the facility the equivalent of listing the initiating Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. G.D.

in accordance with a proposed signals that initiate closure of the scram Watson, Nebraska Public power amendment would not:(1) Involve a system vent and drain valves.

District Post Office Box 499, Columbus, significant increase in the probability or Accordingly, this replacement does not Nebnska 680010499 consequencu of an accident previously change the safety analyses, plant NRO Prvfect Director: Frederick J.

evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of procedures or hardware and accordingly liebdan a new or different kind of accident from does not (1) Involve a significant i

N m Mohawt Power Corporation, any accident previously evaluated; or (3) increase in the probability or et No. 50 220, Nine Mile Point involve a significant reduction in a consequences of an accident previously Nucient Station, Unit No.1, Oswego margin of safety, evaluated or (2) Create the possibility of County New York The licensee has provided the a new or different kind of accident from Dois of amendment request:

following analysis in its August 28,198g any accident previously evaluated; or (3) submittal.

Involve a significant reduction in a December 27.1988, as amended August 28.1980 and November 17,1989.

b proposed amendment win not involve margin of safety,

. Descr;t/on of amendment request e significant increase in the probabuity or

2. Amendment No. 44 was issued consequenen of an accident previously without the changes made to Table 3.2.7 The proposed amendment would revise evaluated.The proposed amendment per Amendment No.43 as documented Techmcal Specifications 3.1.1 and 4.1.1 incorporates a commitment to periodically in the Correction Letter dated April to, (Contrd Rod S stem), and associated demonstnte that the SDV and instrument 1989. Specifically, the addition of new Bsses ta provi e testing and IJmiting piping is free of blockage. 'Ibe LCO for the valves in Table 3.2.7 Per Amendment Condition for Operation re uirements SDV vent and drain valves wiu insure these which will demonstrate an ensure that valva wtU perform their required function.

No. 43 did not appear on Table 3.2.7 l

the Scram Discharge volume is operable. The fill / drain test win amun that sufficient when Amendment No. 44 was The test to demonstrate operability will volume is evallable in the SDV so that it win processed. The proposed amendment also ensure that the instrument lines are accommodate water drained from the control will correct this administrative error and f:ee of blockage and can perform their rod drives when a reactor screm occun, combine the changes made per safety functions.These changes are These changes will not increase the Amendments No. 43 and No. 44. This proposed to address Surveillance probability or consequenen of an accident correction does not change the safety Criterion 3 of the June 24,1963 previously evaluated.

analysis, plant procedures or hardware Confirmatory Order issued on June 21, the po[stSty of a new n k$ oj and accordingly does not (1) Involve a eccident from any accident previously signif : ant increase in the probability or 1083.

Additionally, by this amendment, the evaluated.The proposed amendment consequences of an accident previously l'st of initiating signals for the scram provides for tecing plant equipment (SDV) to evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of discharge system vent and drain valves demonstrate that it is capable of performing a new or different kind of accident from in Table 3.2.7 would be replaced with a its intended funciton when required. The SDV any accident previously evaluated; or (3) more concise list. The previous listing in will not be subjected to conditions other than involve a significant reduction in a Table 317 was intended to include the those for which it was designed.The SDV margin of safety, same parameters that initiate reactor vent and drain valves close to prevent

3. The licensee proposes also to delete scram as identified in Table 3.6.2a.

Potential leakage. Consequently. there is no the note "A.I.P.O.-Automatically b

" Instrumentation That initiates Scram."

hden

• h pnbkin of Initiated Power Operated." The acronym All reactor scram signals, automatic or evaluated.

A.I.P.O. does not appear anywhere in manual, initiate closure of the scram The proposed amendment will not involve the text. Therefore, the note no longer system vent and drain valves.This a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

applies and its deletion does not change change is proposed to avoid having to The SDV vent and drain valves will be the safety analysis, plant procedures or modify Table 317 if changes are mado demonstrated to be operable and will not be hardware and accordingly does not (1) in the parameters listed in Table 3.6.2a.

subjected to conditbns other than those for Involve a significant increase in the Therefore, the changes to Table 317 are which they were designed.There wiu be no probability or consequances of an considered administrative, reduction in any margin of safety as a result accide tt previously evaluated; or (2) of erforming this test.

Create the possibility of a new or This amendment would also combine P

changes ma<la ner Amendments No. 43 The staff has reviewed the licensee's different kind of accident from any and rrect an administrative no significant hazards consideration accident previously evaluated; or (3) erre

• Correction Letter determination and agrees with the involve a significant reduction in a date Therefore, the licensee's analysis, margin of safety.

che zative in nature.

Additionally, the licensee proposes to Therefore, the staff proposes that the y the licensee in their (1) replace the list of initiating signals amendment will not involve a significant N

es letter, the reference for the scram discharge system vent and hazards consideration.

"A satically Initiated drain valves in Table 317 with a more LocalPublic Document Room Pow..

., in a footnote on Table concise list, (2) combine changes made location: Reference and Documents 317 would to deleted.The footnote is per Amendments No. 43 and No. 44, and Department, Penfleid Library, State no longer applicable, therefore, the (3) delete a faotnote on Table 317 University of New York, Oswego, New change is only administrative in nature.

which no longer applies.

York 13126.

J e

'30381 Federal Regleter / Vol. 55, No. 96 / Wednesday. May 16, 1930 / Notices Attorneyfor licensee: Troy B. Conner, significant hazards consideration if removal of the values of these limits Jr., Esquire. Conner & Wetterbahn, Suite operation of the facility in accordance from the Tochtdcal Specifications, they 1060,1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,,

with the proposed amendment would

- have been incorporated into the Core Washington, DC annna not: (1) involve a signiocant increase in Operating Umits Report that is i

NRCProjectDirectonRobert A.

the probability or consequences of an submitted to the Conunission. Hence,

{

Capra accident previously evaluated: or (2) appropriate measures exist to control Meowk Fwe

Peoden, Create the possibility of a new or the values of these limits. These changes DN,o, seee.N,,b, Mue p, g different kind of accident from any are adm.inistrative in nature and do

,,,,,,,,,,e,, u,

.,, o,.e,

soedeni,reviousiy ->uaied: - m im,aci..,eroon of me fnoty in a law a signincent a

-m eat inwives signincant hazards County' New Yesk margin of safety.

consideration.

Date of amendment request: April to, ne proposed revision to the Based on the preceding assessment, 1990 Technical Specifications are in the staff proposes that the amendment Description of amendmentisquest accordance with the guidance provided involves no significant hazards The proposed amendment would revise in Generic Letter 88-16 for license" considerations' Technical Specifications Section 1.0 and requesting removal of of the values of g,,,jpg3fj, Document Room Specifications 3/411. 3/4.213/4.2.3,3/

cycle-specific parameter limits from TS.

414,3/4.4.1. Table 3.3.6 2, supporting De establishment of these limits in hh Ref-M Docume BASES and Sections 5.3, and adds accordance with an NRC-approved Department, Penfield Ubrary, State Section 6.9.1.0 to Appendix A of Facility methodology and the incorporation of of University of New York, Oswego, New Operating ucense No. NPF 89.The these limits into the Core Operating York 13126.

amendment would replace the values of Limits Report will ensure that proper Attorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner, cycle-specific parameter limits with a steps have been taken to establish the Jr., Esquire, Conner & Wetterhahn, Suite s

reference to the Unit 2 Core Operating values of theselimits.

1050,1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

umits Report, which contains the values Furthermore, the subm!ttal of the Core Washington, DC 20006.

of those limits. Bases would be revised Operating umits Report will allow the NRCProjectDliscior: Robert A.

to be consistent with changes made in staff to continue to trend the values of Capra the specifications. Technical these limits without the need for prior Specification 5.3, description of the Fuel staff approvalof theselimits and Mohawk Pwer Carparadon, l

Assemblies and Control Rod withoutintroduction of an unreviewed No. 50 410, Nine Mile Point Assemblies, would be revised to be non-safety question.% revised Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2, Scriba, New i

fuel type specific.b Core Operating specifications, with the removal of the Yak Umits Report has been included in the values of cycle-specific parameter limits Date of amendment request: April 27, l

Definitions Section 1.0 of the Technical and that addition of the referenced 1990 Specifications (TS) to note that it is the report for these limits, does not create 1,

unit-e cific documer.t that provides the possibility of a new or different kind Description ofomendment request these imits for the current operating of accident from those previously Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation reload cycle. Furthermore, the definition evaluated.They also do not involve a holder of Facility Operating Ucense No' notes that the values of these cycle-significant reduction in the margin of

• h*h[ca specific parameterlimits are to be safety since the change does not alter determined in accordance with the the methods used to establish these (TS) set forth in APP *ndix A to that Specification 6.919. This specification limits.

License. Specifically, the change would i

requires that the Core Operating Limits Consequently, the proposed change on moMy Technical Specmcation A j

be determined for each reload cycle in the removal of the values of cycle-4.0.2 to provide, on a one-time basis, a accordance with the referenced NRC-specific limits does not involve a delay in the conduct of specifically

)

approved methodology for these limits significant increase in the probability or identified surveillance tests (STs) so and coesistent with the applicable limite consequences of an accident previous!y that the beginning date of the next of the safety analysis. Finally, this evaluated.

mening outage may be extended by 4

I report and any mid-cycle revisions shall Because the values of cycle-specific about three weeks.ne.e STs include a j

be providei to the NRC upon issuance, parameter limits will continue to be category of twelve types of tests which Generic Letter 88-16, dated October 4, determined in accordance with an NRC-cannot be conducted at power and a 4

1988, from the NRC provided guidance approved methodology and consistent further category of eleven types of tests to licensees on request for removal of with the applicable limits of the safety which cannot be conducted during the the values of cycle-specific parameter analysis, these changes are initial phases of the refueling outage.

limits from TS. b licensee's proposed administrative in nature and do not The types of tests include calibrations of i

amendment is in response to this impact the operation of the facility in a instrument setpoints and components, Generic Letter.%e licensee's manner that involves siglficant hazards logic system functional tests, instrument application of April 10,1000 supercedes considerations.

response time tests, leak rate tests, 1

in its entirety, an application dated The proposed amendment does not battery service tests, position indication i

November'9,1989, which has not been alter the requirement that the plant be tests, and a functional test of the previously noticed in the Federal operated within the limits for cycle, vacuum breaker setpoint.

1 specific parameters nor the required The proposed delayin the conduct of i

isforptcposedno significont remedial actions that must be taken these STs would represent an l

hasards consideration determinotion:

when these limits are not met. While it approximate increase of five percent or j

W staff has has provided standards for is recognized that euch requirements are less in the allowable TS testing interval.

determining whether a significant essential to plant safety, the values of The licensee has submitted a detailed hazards consideration exists as stated in limits can be determined in accordance discussion of the previous sarveillance 4

to CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment to with NRC approved methods without testing performance of each of the types j

an operating license involves no affecting nuclear safety. With the of components in support of the i

,w

-.,,-,w

,,,...-.n

,..,n-,

Federal Register / Vcl. 55, Na, 96 / Wednieday, M:y to,1990 / Nstices 30363 proposed surveillance interval will not involve a signiScent reduction in a Loco /Public Document Room

• • '818 of **fe.

location: Reference and Documents extension.

Basis forpmposU agnificant m

change wiu not came Department, Penfield Library, State hasards consideratioueterminatione exioung Technical un University of New York, Oswego, New The Commission has provided

[NDfm.the margins of dt b crit York 13126.

ety standards for determining whether a establiebed by the Technical Spec 18 cations Attorneyforlicensee: Mark significant hazards consideration exists am not signiBeantly mduced by this Wetterhahn, Esq., Conner &

as stated in to CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment.

Wetterbahn, Butte 1060,1747 amendment to an operating license for a Reasonable aneurance exists that actual Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

facility involves no significant hazards trip setpoints wiu maain===vatin with Washington, DC 20006.

consideration if operation of the facility respect to their allowable values and that the NRCProjectDirector: Robert A.

in accordance with a proposed p owcon funcues souciawd wie each Capre amendment would not:(1) Involve a channel are completed within the time limit assumed in the safety analysia. no partial Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et significant increase in the probability or testing of the logic systems maintaine e al. Docket No. 36 tas, Millstone Nuclear consequences of an accident previously reasonable level of con 8dence in the Power Station, Unit No. 3. New London evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of operability of the required logic. ne low County, r' hit a new or different kind of accident from combined Type B and C leakage rate, the any accident previously evaluated; or (3) small percentage of that leakage rate that Date of amendment requeert Involve a significant reduction in a nine deferred valves on Table 3.6.1.21 December 11,1989 as supplemented by margin of safety, mPrwat, and the reistively smau incmase in letter dated March 2,1990 The licensee provides the following the surnulance interval provide continued Description of amendment request analysis in support of its application.

amurance of a leak ogM UnH 2 ontainment, th The proposed amendment would modify ne operetion of Nine Mue point Unit 2,in Millstone Unit 3 Technical Specification

,a I from cont ta e

accordance with the proposed amendment, wiu not involve a significant increase in the in the ennt of an accident.no low leak

('IS) 3/4.5.1, " Accumulators," to increase

'F rates observed for the pressure isolation the allowable out-of service time (for j, ', uate[ "

valves provide confidence in the sealing reasons other than a closed discharge y

ne proposed amendment involves an capabihty of the valves for the extended isolation valve) from 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, increase in the allowed surveulance interval interval.

This amendment was previously for e limited number of plant components in The batteries have a duisn margin of over noticed in the Federal Register on various plant systems. Assurance of the 20% for Division 1 and 30% for Division II. It February 21,1990 (55 FR 6100).

is unreasonable to tulate undetected continued operabihty of the com nente However, due to the supplemental fi m e [Su ci n r exis in the si rating n e a sh rt pe f

information provided by the licensee by design basis for each system to accommodate time. Thus, reasonable assurance exists that letter dated March 2,1990, the staff has the increased interval between testa. The sufficient power will be avauable for too safe decided to renotice the proposed aggregate effect of the increased surveillance shutdown of the facility and the mitigation amendment.

Intervals has been evaluated and found to and control of an accident condition within Basisforproposedno significant have no resulting impact on system reliability the facility, hazards consideration determination or performance.Thus, the amendment does An interval of twenty three (23) months for The Millstone Unit 3 reactor coolant not adversely affect the response of any position indication verification complies with system is eqt.j P*d with fourlarge tanks p

l component or system to previously analyzed IWV-3300 and provides reasonable assurance accidents, thereby assuring no significant that position indication will be maintained Pressurized with nitrogen and increase in the probabihty or consequences for accident moni purposes.no testing containing borated water,in the event of of an accident previously evaluated.

history of the va akers, combined a loss-of coolant accident (LOCA) that The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2,in with the passive d of the opening causes a significant decrease in reactor accordance with the proposed amendment, mechanism and the short extension in their coolant system pressure, these l

will not create the possibihty of a new or surveulance interval, provide assurance that

" accumulator" tanks discharge their different kind of accident from any accident the vacuum breaker opening setpoint wiu not borated water into the reactor coolant i

previously evaluated, be exceeded in the additional seven (7) days system. The accumulator's function is to l

This proposed amendment only involves an of surveulance interval.

increase in the maximum surveillance FinaUy, it is overly conservative to assume temporarily reflood the reactor coolant laterval for a hmited number of plant that systems or components are inoperable at system and thus supply coolant until the components. Continued operability and the end of the normal surveillance interval.

Emergency Core Cooling System can reliabihty of the subject components has The vast majority of surveillances begin operation, been demonstrated. All safety-releted demonstrate that systems or components are At the present time. TS 3.5.1 requires systems and components wiu remain within in fact operable Extending the surveillance that, during Modes 1,2 and 3 each their appucable design limits. Thus, systems intervals for a variety of surveulance tests on accumulator be operable with the and component performance is not adversely a limited number of components in various

ollowing conditions being met

affected by this change and plant post-systems will have no significant effect on the accident response to previously evaluated aggregate performance of the plant safety a.The leo!ation vaIve open and power

".0V'd*

accidents remains wpbin previously assened sys, ems.Therefore, operation of Nine Mile b A contained borated water volume hmits. Further, amurance exists that the Point Unit 2. In accordance with the proposed design capabuities of those systems and amendment, will not involve a signincent of between 0618 and 6847 gallons, components are not challenged in a manner reduction in a margin of safety,

c. A boron concentration of between not previously assessed so as to create the The staff has reviewed and agrees 2200 and 2000 ppm, and possibuity of a new or different kind of with the licensee's analysle of the

d. A nitrogen cover pressure of significant hazards consideration between 630 and 604 pela.

in a

e pr po I amend ent, will not create the ponibihty of a new or determination. Based on the review and if one accumulator is inoperable for different kind of accident from any the above discussion, the staff proposes reasons other than a closed isolation previously evaluated.

to determine that the proposed change valve. TS 3.5,1 would require rentoration The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2,in does not involve a significant hazards of the inoperable accumulator to accordgece with the proposed amendment, consideration.

operable status within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> or place

~

Federal Reglata; / Vol. &&, Ns. 95 / IVednesday, M:y to.1990 / N:tices the plant in Hot Standby within e hours.

proposed change to 111 S.E.11avolves no not swult in a dearense la alw margin of The licensee has requested that the 1 significant hasards conalderation.

enf*W-hour restoration time be extended to 8 LocalhblicDocument Aoom The NRC st'aff has reviewed the hours.

locotion. laarning Resources Cong,

licensee's no significant hasards ne licensee has considered the nomas Valley State Techaloal Cohese, consideration determination and agrees increase in risk associa'ed with an 874 New landon Twapike, Norwich, with the 16eensee's analysia.

Increase in unavailability of an Connecticut 0e800.

Accordingly, the Comadeolon proposes accumulator from t hour to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.

Attomerfor licensee: Gerald Gar $ eld, to determine that the proposed Using an NRC staff-approved Esquire. Day, Bercy & Howard. City amendment involves no significant probabilistic risk aseesament (PRA)

Place. Hartford. Connecticut 0010kNeo hasards conalderation.

model for Millstone Unit 3. the licensee NRCProfoct Director: John F. Stols localpublicDocumentRoom found that the brobability of a medium-locotion: W. Dale Clark 1.lbrary, 215 to-large break concurrent with an N abags, art Calheus Stellen, Unit inoperable accumulator increeped from 03102 3.75E 4/yr to 3.00E 7yr. The increase in No.1, WesWegen County, Nehreeks A fromev for licensee: leBoeuf. Lamb, core melt frequency, however, only Date of omendment rogueet: March 19.

Imiby, and MacRae,1883 New increases by 2.63E 7/yr.This increase is 1990 Hamp3 hire Avenue. NW., Washington, i

negligible (e.g. less than.5%) when Description of amendment roguest:

DC 30006 compared to the overall core melt The proposed amendment to the NRCprofect Director: Frederick J.

fnquency due to internally initiated TechnicalSpecificauons addrwees Hebc'on events of 6.34 E-5/yr.

eeveral administrative changes found on Title 10 CPR 50.92. " Issuance of pages 61, F6. 5 8. and 619a. nose Puu Servios Company of Coloredo, Amendment." contains standards for changes are title changes as a result of a Dooket No. 36307. Fort St. Vrain addressing the existence of no reorganisation and also a partial Nuclear Gemensting testion, Wald significant hasards consideration with relocation of the Emergency Planning Country, Colorado regard to issuance of license Department. in addition, a title was Dole of amendment roguest amendments. In this regard. the changed. Supervisor Radiation November 31,iges as supplemented proposed ch e to TS 3.5.1 does not Protection,in Amendment 115 but was April 25,1990 involve a e cant hasards nnitted from page 619a. His change is Description of amendment request

.:ensideration because the change would also included.

This amendment request addressed l

not:

Basisforproposedno sisalficont permanent shutdown of Fort St. Vrain

1. Involve a significant increase in the hasords consideration determination!

(FSV). It would prohibit operation of the probability or consequences of an The Commission has provided FSV reactor, accident previously analyzed. While the standards for determining whether a Basisforproposedno significant probability of e LOCA with concurrent significant hasards consideration exists honords consideration determination unavallability of an secumulator does as stated in 10 CPR 60.92(c). A pmpowd l

increase,it is still well within amendment to an operating heense for a The Public Service Company of Co orado (PSC) has submitted a no l

acceptable standards especially with facility involves rio significant hazards significant hasards consideration regard to its contribution to core melt consideration if operation of the facility analysis in accordance with the frequency. Sinco the unavailabihty of an in accordance with the proposed requirements of to CFR 80.91 and 80.92.

accumulator was previously permitted amedrnet would not:(1) Involve a PSC's analyds d significant hasarda by the TS. no increase in consequences

.. O acrease ti be probability or condderauona fouom-is associated with the proposed change, con.vquences M en seeklent previously his proposed amendownt to the Facility

2. Create the possibihty of a new or evaluated; or p) Create the possibility d opereung IJoense prohibits opereuon of the i

different kind of accident from any a new or different kind of accident from FSV reactor at any power level PSC has no previously analyzed.ne pmposed any accident previously evaluated; or (3) latention of taking the FSV reactw crtucal change would not impact the plant involve a significant reduction in a again. F.xteting analyses addrew potenual response to the poi.nl where a new margin of safety.The licensee provided amident scenarios from a reactor shutdown accident is created. Tha basis for this an analysis that addrened the above omdlum through poww epmetia.

determination is that an acci.mulator three standards in the amendmant Maintaining the core subcritical results in an failure current) has sothe finite application as follows:

," ",g*M"'

m c roby probability an the incremental increase This proposed change does not invol" u cid o w w f resulting from de proposed chinge Mgnificat hasards considmuon tocau" would be insignificantly small. There operation of Fort Calhoun Station in maintaining the reactor subcritical, m,,,g,g g,g,,,

are no few failuM modes associated accordance with this change would not; significant hasar lo use operetion of Fort with this change, 8 rein in acewdence wuh this amndmet pr bt r e

a socident

3. Involve a significant reduction in a previody evduskd. % change contains proposal would not:

1 dn a menincasmcrww in the margin of Gafet. The change den not only adminnetreun cometions. This change

",,"g"*" 7 of an accident impact any of t e protective bourberfes. will caanse title and would not effect h

d nor does it impact the safety hmits ivr previously evaluated accidents.

the protective boundaries. Therefore.

L Crute the ibility of a new o'

2) create the poselbility of a new or there is no impact on the basis of the diffent kind o accident from auf different kind of accident fresa any accident Technical Specificetions and the Pmdanly evaluskd. I'his change entaine p,,gogy,,,g, g 3)invofn a

,,,,g, og,g,,seni8 cant reduction te e proposed change dcas not involve a NY,*d nis "'

• N r

y,

,, modw ope re significant reduction in a margin of the plant.

On June 20.1989 as supp%mented safety.

3. Involve a significant reduction in the June 30,1989. December 1.1980 Accordingly, the etaff has made a margin of safety.This rhange contains only February 16.19e0. and March 19.1990, proposed determination that the administrouve corncuono and, as such. A PSC submitted a Dooommissioning l

[

r.deral assister / vol. SS. Na SS / Wednesday May 18, 1880 / Notion 20385 F!nannial plan and a "'whleh hbesestabhsh a new positten, entidad ana-l==m== ef he eWh shin demuon Yankee Nuclear Power Station to:(1) immerpsmuse of a et and no n --i annlag ple'a the tiltimate ties of PSV. PSV Malatenanos Support Supervisor, who "h

• W f

g 13.1.ensamen e.hutdown on Augustmports to the Maintenance

,,, 7i,,

was p s

a miti.d.,re.ceed saw nessmes-ea ofu

.i me.e,ses

, e, e ae. or 4

defuehas pies and assoolated Technical Operation Review Committee. His dinerent meddest grase any pseviously Specifloation

) changes by letter agumkhantiene am essemaneurste with evaluated. he abasgos doestbed in this dated Sep 14, tage as revised by those of the lastnagnostation and proposed ebenge de met modify any plant letter dated October 18, tees. Defuehag Controle and Man =*===aaa Supervisore systsee er sempensate, and will not mete was approved by Asnandment No. 74 Reporting to the Maintenemos Support the possibelny of a new or diamet sondent deled nana. Amr 1,3339 and one third of

";:h, e new maintenames support l'em any pelssely malented.

the opent fuelin the core has been organteation e===Hatates engineering

s. amin a Weninoemt mduouw in a transferred to the PSV spent fuel storage T '." : for improved direction and eTsinf l

N ehee are sensistent

wens, me wous io ao maaimum oo.- of prov-eve aw,re=*e wid,e.le e.,e,es ses cepecity.

plans to ship all of the maintenance programa, as weH es,

,us ae on etendards,ineerporenes of a previously i

spent fuel to a De t of Energy design modinoation activittee,(2)

NRC approved =ian=== shift complement.

I (DOE) foollity has a commitment establish another new position, entitled and elaninenes of the sight.bour shift l

troen DOE la this regard. Until the DOE Operations Support % _-A who requirement while retaining the existing is prepared to receive the fuel PSC reports to the Plant Operations Manager guidehnee se overtime will met involve e slaae to store the fuel at the PSV of te.

and wiH become a sneenber of the Plant etsninoast redention in a margin of safety.

N daaa==t=='oning of PSV Operation Review Consalttee. Reporting De staff has reviewed the licensee's wiu separately noticed in the Federal to the Operations Support Supervisor, e no signinoant hasards consideration new operstions support p==a d tion determination analysis. Based upon this i

u.sy be reduced from that consolidates e5erte for =

mysew, the staff agmes with the required power operetiene but a modifloation and implementation of licensee's no signinaa=t hasards eumcient number of licensed operetors, operations. t (s)obange the analysis. Saeed upon the above Technical Advisore, Equipment title of Technical Servioso Supervisor to discuselon, the staff proposes to Operatore and Shift Supervisore shall be Technical Services unnapar,(4) ohange determine that the proposed change totained et the level mquired for tha number of SROs on ehlft from one to does not involve a signincant hasards permanent ocid shutdown otetus in two in asempliance with D41 consideration.

socordance with 713 requimments, if a requirements; and (5) change the shift LocalpuMicIbcument Room reduction in these staffing levele le duretion to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> for some opereting loootion: Green 8 eld Community College, proposed, an additional notice of the personnel which still result, on the 1 Conese Detve, Greenfield, pmposed'Ill amendment will be average,in an approxisnote 40. hour Massachusetts 01301 published in the Federal Regleter, workweek.

Attomeyforlicensee %omas Dignan, Appropriate staffing is also provided in Dosisforpro aoadeqficant Esquire. Ropes and Grey,125 Frankhn the Doensees Phre Protection Pmgram honords consi tion determination:

htreet, Boston, Massachusetts 02111 Plan and Phyelcal Security Plan.

W Commiselon has provided NRCProject Director: Richard H.

This proposed amendment is more standards for determining whether a Woosman metrictive la that it deletes authority to algnificant hesards consideretton exists operate the toector, it le eff ectively the (10 CFR 60.92(c)). A proposed Yankee Alsade Electricr p.ny, same as an amendment to posseselon-amendment to an operating license for a Dookat No.MBB, Yankee Nuclear only status.

facihty involves no elsninoant hasarde Power Statles. Franklin County, W staff has reviewed the licensee's considerations if operation of the facility u.

h.sa.

no signiacant hasards consideration in accordance with a proposed Date of amendment request: Apr0 20' determination. Based on the review and amendment would not:(1)lavolve e 19eo the above discuselons, the staff significant inemase in the probability or pmposes to determine that the proposed consequenose of an accident previously Description of amendmentiveuest'-

changes do a4 involve a significant evaluated:(2) Create the possibility of a W proposed amedmont would hasards consideration.

new or different kind of accident from incorporate the NRC guidance contained in Generic istter 8817 into the YNPS Ioan/PuMic Document Room an accident previously evaluated; or (3) location: Graeley Public 1,1 bra $o,redoCity involve a signl8 cant reduction in a haicalSpuincadons WMme Complex Building. Greeley, Co margin of eafety, new11e are added which opecify the l

P ant condillone and equipment Attorneyforlicensee ). K.Tarpey, h licensee addressed the above Public Service Company Building. Room three standards in the amendment oPwaWy mquimmate 2 pmmt m 900,85015th Street Denver, Colorsdo application. In regard to the three uncomyif shupown whng is lost etandards, the liconese provided the during aduwe,ml opemuon.N 80202 NRCProfect Director: Seytaour H.

l i proposed change also addresen 1.ow following anabs:

Temperatum Overpressurisation Weies The changes wGl pmv6de fa, Yankee Atemde Electric Company.

'[

% I" evef sti n o ly d

Decitet No es.ges, Yankee Nuclear activittee, incorporation of a pwviously NRC.

after the Main Coolant System fMCS)

Power Staties, Funakala County.

epproved =lan=== shift now compleurat has been adequately vented.

M*=*"*****

and elineinstion of the elght boer ekitt Basis for Ptoposedno significant

• I"***U* *[p****n *'***i,,

CF 1'A****b Date of amerdosent request: April 12.

y hosard considention determination:

s

,.ie t, m,

ea n, ease n m c-- h,rovided 1

0. euppiamenied Apro 20a 0 e

Descr1(prion ofomendment request:

probability or consequences of an accident standards for determining whether a b proposed amendment would modify previously evaluated. The adminletrative algnificant hasards consideration exists the Technical Specifications of the nature of the stalBeg changes et YNps, (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed

6 asses Fedecal Regleter / Vol. 65. N3. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 1990 / N:tices

.- ~ ~. -. ~.-

cmendment to an operating license for a notices.The notice content was the

'Tuol Har dling Ventilation Exhaust facility involves no significant hasards same as above.ney were published as System" and its associated bases.no consideration tf operation of the facility individual notices either because time revision would change the carbon in accordance with a proposed did not allow the Commissian to wait adsorber test method to ensure that the cmendment would not:(1) Involve a for th!s biweekly notice or because the fuelpoolventilation filters have a significant increase in the probability or action involved exigent circumstances.

decontamination efficiency of greater consequences of an accident previously ney are repeated here because the than or equal to 95% under all evaluated:(2) Create the possibility of a biweekly notice lists all amendments postulated operating conditions.no new or different kind of accident issued or proposed to be issued laboratory test of carbon samples would previously evaluated:(3) Involve a iW.lving no significant hasards be conservatively tested at 95% relative significant reduction in a margin of twalderation.

humidity,instead of 70% which is s:fity.

For details, see the individual notice currently required. Changing the The licensee addressed the above in the Federal Register on the day and allowable penetration for the carbon three standards in the amendment page cited.This notice does not extend beds to 0J1% instead of ts would application. In regard to the three the notice period of the original notice.

improve the safety factor of the fuel pool stindards, the licensee provided the f;ll; wing analy is:

Consumers Power Company, Docket No. ventilation system.

""I '

30 255 Palisades, Van Buren County, Dote ofpublication ofindividual dinelr@eie nioYske nical Michigan notice in Federal Register: May 1.1990 Specifications guidance contained in USNRC Date of amendment request: March 6, (55 FR 18198)

Generic !stter advir. As such, this proposed gggq hpiration date ofindividualnotice:

chinse would not:

BriefDescription of amendment:The May 31,1990 (11 involve a significant increase in the prtbebility or consequences of en accident proposed license amendment would Loco /PublicDocumentRoorn revise the requirement of Technical location: York County Ubrary,138 East h ci$ or a t a to level Specification (FS) 4.14.1 by extending Black Street, Rock Hill, South Caroline opcration enhances Yankee's capabibtles by the due date for the periodic steam 29730 requiring that additional equipment be generator inspections which otherwise operational to prevent core uncovery during would be due not later than July 4,1990.

Philaddphia M cmp *"I' PM

• • 'VI** U*CIC **0 G** C**P**Y' y, thie mode of operation.

Date ofpublication ofindividual Delmarva Power and ught Compan (2) Create the possibility of s new or noticein FederalRegister: April 18,1990 and Adantic City Doctric Company, da!!: rent kind of accident from any (55 FR 14147) date ofindividualno#ce:

pvviously evaluated.The addition of hpiration Docket No. 80 275, Peach Bottom Sp;cifications to eddress reduced level operation does not alter plant systems, May 16,1990 Atomic Power Station, Unit No. 3, York LocalPublic Document Room County, Pennsylvania components, or structures.

(3) involve a significant redution in a location: Van Zoeren Ubrary,llope Date of amendment request: April 12, margin of safety.The addition of College,llolland, Michigan 49423 1990 1,pecifiestions to eddress reduced level Comumers Power Company, Docket No.

Briefdescription of amendment Yankeeenb 50255, Palisades, Van Buren County, request:The proposed Technical o preven core c ery during this mo e of operation.

Michigan Specification change would allow a one The staff has reviewed the licensee's Date of amendment request: April 11, time extension of about seven months no significant hazards consideration 1990 for the performance of required visual determination analys!s. Based upon th!e BriefDescription of amendment:The inspections of inaccessible snubbers.

review, the staff agrees with the proposed license amendment would Date ofpublication ofindividual licensee's no significant ha:ards revise the requirement of Tec.hnical notice in Federal Register: April 24,1990 analysis. Dased upon the above Specification (TS) 3.3.1.b by relaxing, for (55 FR 17326) discussion, the staff proposed to a limited time, the baron concentration Spiration date ofindividuolnotice:

determine that the proposed chango requirement for Safety injection (SI)

May 24,1990 does not involve a significant hazards Tank T.82A. Additionally, a temporary LocalPublic Document Roorn consideration.

surveillance requirement would be location: Government Publications Loco /Public Document Room added to Table 4.2.1. Item 5.

locofion: Greenfield Community College, Date ofpublication ofindividual Section, State ubrary of Pennsylvania' (REGION AL DEPOSITORY) Educatiors 1 College Drive, Creenfiel1, noticein FederalRegister: April 23,1990 Building, Walnut Street and Massachusetts 01301.

(55 FR 15300)

Commonwealth Avenue. Box 1001, Attorneyforlicensee: Thomas Dignan.

bpirotson date ofindividuo! notice:

liarrisburg, Pennsylvanla 17105.

Esquire, Ropes and Gray,225 Franklin May 23,1990 Street, Boston Massachusetts 02111 Loco /Public Document Room Public Service Electric & Gas Company, NRCProject Director: Richard 11.

location: Van Zocren Ubrary,llope Docket Noa. 50-272 and 50-311 Salem Wessman College,llolland, Michigan 49423.

Generating Station, Unit Nos.1 and 3 PREV 10USLY PUBUSHED NOTICES Duke' Power Company, et al., Docket Salem County, New Jersey OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE Noa.80-413 and 50-414, Catawba Date of amendment request: April 4.

OF AMENDMENTS TO OPERATING Nuclear Station Units : and 2. York 1990 and supplements dated April 12, UCENSES AND PROPOSED NO County, South Carolina 1990 and April 20,1990 SlGNIF1 CANT IlAEARDS Date of amendment request: April 23, Brief description of amendment CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION 1990 request:The amendment would increase AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEAR!NG Brief description of amendments: The the allowable closure time of the main The following notices were previuosly proposed amendments would revise steam isolation valve from 5 seconds to published as separate individual Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.9.11 8 seconds for one fuel cycle.

Federal Regleter / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Wedneday. May 16, teso / Notices 30387 Date ofpublication ofindividual DC 30sss, Attention: Director Division No sfgnificanthasards consademuon notice in Federal Register: April as,1990 of Reactor Projects.

comments received No LocalpublicDocument Room (asFR170s3)

Expimtion date ofindividuolnotice:

Arkamens Power & ught ramp==Q,, locotlan: Calvert County Ubrary, Prince i

g,,g,g y,, gyggg, g,y,,,,, y,,

May 29,1990 One. Ualt1, Pope County, Arkansen Frederick, Maryland.

loco Sal i

brary 112 Date of applicationsforamendment:

Powe y, et aL, West Broadway, Salem, New Jersey Decembe 15,1999 N,g, m'

n' Brunswick Steams Electric Plant, Units 1 ntmodhe Su 111ano and 3 Brunswick County, North ame Carchne NO11CE OFISSUANCE OF Requirements 4.9.4.1 of the Arkansas AMENDMENT TO FACRJTY Nuclear One, Urct 2 Technical Date of applicationfor amendments:

OPERATING UCENSE Specifications to reflects a reduction in February to.1990 the period since publication of the minimum Shutdown Cooling loop Description of amendments:ne the last tweekly notice, the flow from 3000 spm to 2000 spm.

amendments revise 'Ili 4.0.2.

Commission has issued the following Dateofissuance April 30.1990 Surveillance Requirements by removing amendments.no Commission has Effecure dote: April 30,1990 the 3.25 limit on extending surveillance determined for each of these AmendmentNo. 104 intervals.

amendments that the application Facility Opemting Ucense No. NPF4 Date oflesuance: April 23,1990 complies with the standards and Amendment revised the Technical Effecure date: April 23,1990 requirements of the Atomic Energ Act Specifications.

Amendment Nos. 141 and 173 of 1954, as amended (the Act, an the Date ofinitio/noticein Federal Commission's rules and regu ations.The Register: March 7,1990 (55 FR 821 na racility Opemung Ucense Nos. DPR.

Commission has made appropriate Commission's related evaluation o the 71 andDPR.82. Amendments revise the findings as required by the Act and the amendment is contained in a Safety Technical Specifications.

Commission's rules and regulations in to Evaluation dated April 30,1990.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal i

CFR Chapter 1, which are set forth in the No significantheroids considemuon Register: March 7,1990 (55 FR The license amendment.

comments received: No.

Commission's related evaluation o the Notice of Consideratinn of lesuance of LocalPublic Document Room amendments is contained in a Safety Amendment to Facility Operating location:Tomlinson Ubrary. Arkansas Evaluation dated April 23,1990.

Ucense and Proposed No Significant Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas No significant hazonis considention Hazards Consideration Determination 72801 comments received:No.

and Opportunity for Hearing in LocolpublicDocument Room Baltimore Gas and Electric Company connection with these actions was Docket Noa 88 317 and 30 318 Calve't location: University of North Carolina at e

published in the Federal Register as Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Unit Nos.1 Wilmington, William Madison Randall indicated. No request for a hearing or tition for leave to intervene was filed and 2. Calvert County, Maryland Ubrary,001 S. College Road, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 3297, Following this notice.

Date of applicationfor amendments:

Unless otherwise indicated, the August 30,1989 and January 12,1990 Carolina Power & Ught Company, Commission has determined that these Brief description of amendments, Docket No. 30 381, H. B. Robinson i

l amendments patisfy the criteria for

%ese amendments rovide surveillance Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, l

categorical exclusion in accordance requirements for th laboratory and in.

Darlington County. South Carolina

(

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant place testing of the charcoal adsorbers Date of applicationforamendment:

to to CFR 51.22(b). no environmental and high e9ciency particulate absorber February 13,1990 impact statement or environmental (HEPA) filters included in the following description of amendment The assessment need be prepared for these systems: (1) containment iodine removal cmen ent changes the Technical amendments.lf the Commission has system. (2) penetration room exhaust air Specificatiens (TS) to incorporate p ared an em;onmental assessment filtration system. (3) control room rovisions for the reactor vessel level un er the special circumstances emergency ventilation system,(4) strumentation system and core exit provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has emergency core cooling stem (ECCS) thermocouple, made a determination based on that pump room exhaust air tration system.

Date ofissucace: April 27.1990 assessment,it is so indicated.

and (5) spent fuel pool ventilation For further details with respect to the system.The amendments also clarify Effectivedate April 27.1990 action see (1) the applications for the present requirement to verify that Amendment No.126 a'nendments, (2) the amendments, and the control rooms emerge cy ventilation Facility ung Ucense No. DPR.

(3) the Commission's related letters, system isolation valves ose on a high

23. Amen ent revises the Technical S ecifications.

Safety Evaluations and/or radiation test signal.

P Environmental Assessments as Date oflasuance: April 27,1990 Date ofinitialnoticein Federal indicated. All of these items are Effecure date: April 27,1990 Register: March 7,1990 (55 FR 8220) ne vallable for public inspection at the AmendmentNos.:142.125 Commission's related evaluation of the Commission's Public Document Room.

.%cility Opemting Ui.ense Nos. DPR.

amendment is contained in a Safety the Gelman Building. 2120 L Street. NW.,

53 andDPR.ed Amendments revised the Evaluetion dated April 27.1990.

Washington, DC, and at the local public Technical Specifications.

No significant horords considemtion document rooms for the particular Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal comments received: No facilities involved. A copy of items (2)

Register: March 7.1990 (55 FR 8218) The Loco /PublicDocument Room and (3) may be obtained upon request Commission's related evaluation of locadon: Hartsville Memorial Ubrary, addressed to the U.S. Nuclear these amendments is contained in a Home and Fifth Avenuee, Hartsville, Regulatory Commiesion Washington, Safety Evaluation dated April 27,1990.

South Carolina 29535

20360 Federal Regleter / Vol. 56, N3,95 / Wednesday, May 16, 1990 / N tices Comasonwealth Edison Company, Censussers Power Compsey, Docks 4 No.

No significant Aaroids consideration Docket Noa. OS 375 and 86 874, taSalle 88 285, Palisades Plant, Van Bures comments received:No.

County Statloa, Unit Nos.1 and 2, County, Micidsan LocalPublicDocumentRoom i

LaSalle County, niinois Date of applicationforamendment:

locadon:Oconee County Ubrary,601 Date of applicationforamendments:

September 12,1989, as supplemented by West South Broad Street, Walhalla, September 9,1988 letters dated September 22 and 25,2009, South Carolina 29891 rad March 2,199a Briefdescription of amendments'-

Duke Power Ccepany, Dockets Noa. so-B#ihescrip ono[ omen met:This see, as 279 and as-as7, Oconee Nuclear Th dm t ise the I.aSall

$a' ting to Co ty ta ion, t 1 and 2 Tec}mical I

ary nt Sys e S

C Specificstions by changing Section 3/

(PCS) operable components PCS heatup 4.7.9 to allow the subsequent visual and cooldown rates, PCS pressure /

Date of applicationforamendments inspection period for zero inoperable temperature limits, PCS os erpressure August 14,1987,as supplemented April snubbers of each type on any system per protection system setpoints and 22,1986, and January 23,1990.

inspection period to be 18 months ( 50%

operating requirements. Emergency Core Brief description of amendments: The

+ 25%).

Cooling System operability amendments revise Technical Date ofissuance: Apr0 24,lis0 requirements, and certain related Specification (TS) 3.4.4 to raise the Effective date: Ap! 24,1990 surveillance reouirements. The proposed minimum upper surge tank (UST) level Amendmmdivos.:73 and 57 changes would modify TS Sections 3.1.2, from 8 feet to e feet. The level setpoint 3.1.8,3.3.1,3.3.2,4.1.1, and 4.6.1, and of 6 feetincludes an allowance for o$,'

nI,,'.

ri JJ an

'PF A n ent ie o

6,1990 Tzche! cal Specifications.

Effect ve date: Aprif2n,1030 y e t a ba is o T 3.

Date ofissuance: April 25,1990 Do!c ofinitialnoticein Federal AmendmentNo.:131 Rsgister: December 30,1988 (53 FR ProvisionalOperoung Mcense No.

Effective date: April 25,1990 53009) The Commission's related DPR 20. The amendment revises the Amendments Nos.:183,183,180 evalur. tion of the amendments is Technical Specifications.

Facility Operating ucenses Nos.

contained in 6 Safety Evaluation dated Date ofinitialacticein Federal DPR-38. DPR47 and DPR-55.

April 24,1990.

Register: November 1,1989 (54 FR Amendments revised the Technical No significant hasards consideration 40144). The March 2,1990, letter Specifications.

cominents received: No provided clarifying information that did Date ofinitialnoticein Federal LocalPublicDocument Room n t change the iniual determination of Register: July 26,1989 (54 FR 31105) location Public ubrary ofIllinois Valley no significant hazards consideration as Subsequent to the Commiselon's initial Community College Rural Route No.1' published in,the Federal Register. The notice, the licensee submitted Commission a related evaluaun of the supplementalinformation which Oglesby, Illinois 81348' amendment is contained in a Safety clarified the application. It did not Consolidated Edison Company of New Evaluation dated April 26,1990.

change the intitial determination of no York Docket No.50-247, Indian Point No significant harords considerotJon significant hazaeds considerstion and Nuclear Geners'ing Unit No. 2, comments received: No, thus did not warrant renoticing.The Westchester Co mty, New York LocalPublic Document Room Commission's related evalestion of the location: Van Zoeren Ubrary, flope amendments is contained in a Safety Date of applie ation for amendment:

College,llo' land Michigan 49423 Evaluation dated April 25,1990.

Brie descrips onofamendment:The Duke Power Company, Dockets Noe. 80-

. No significant hazards consideration 289,80-279 and 50 287,0conee Nuclear comments received:No.

Sta n Uni 1,3 and 3. Oconee County.

LocalPublicDocument Roorn ec ficat n o o ea striction r

a that limits the combined time interval location:Oconee County Ubrary,501 for three consecutive surveillances to Date of applicationfor amendments:

West South Broad Street, Walhalla, irss than 3.25 times the specified August 31,1989, as supplemented South Carolina 29001 int m al' Janua 24,1990 Duquesne ught Company, Docket Bri description of amendments:The Nos. 50 334 and504J2. Beaver Valley Date ofissuance: April 30,1990 amen ents revise the Technical Power Station. Unit Nos. 2 and2, Effectsve date: April 30.1990 Specifications to include additional or Shippingport. Pennsylvania Amendment No.:151 more stringent opetability requirements Date of applicationforamendments:

Facility Operating License No. DPR.

Ior various auxiliary electncal systems.

December 14,1989 l

26: Amendment revised the Technical In addition, a number of administrative Spicifications.

and editorial changes are included.

Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the Technical Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Date ofissuance: A ril 25,1990 Specifications of each unit by replacing l

Register: February 21,1990 (5UR 6103) f//*CU$nts' the cycle-specific parameter limits with

'1 79

• d The Commission's related evaluation of 7,,ff]ty Operating ucenses Nos' reference to the Core Operating Limits the amendment is contained in a Safety DPR.38. DPR47 andDPR.55.

Report, which contains the values of Ev luation dated April 30,1990.

Amendments revised the Technical those limits. These amendments reflect No significant hazards consideration Specif cations.

the kuldance provided by NRC Generic comments received:No Date ofinitialnoticein Federal I'"****

LocalPublic Document Room Register: March 7.1990 (55 FR 8223) The Date ofissuance: April 26,1990 location: White Plains Public Ubrary, Commission's related evaluation of the Afective date: April 26,1990 100 Martine Avenue, White Pla!ns, New amendments is contained tri a Safety Amendment Nos.:154 for Unit 1,31 for Ycrk 19010.

Evaluation dated April 25,1990.

Unit 2

Fedoest Register / Vol. 55, Nr. 95 / Wednesda) May 16,1990/ N:tices 30389 Facility Opemtity Ucense Nos. DPR.

this amendment is contained in a Safety lowa Elealde Ught and Power Cosepany, 88 andNPF.TJ. Amendments twised the Evaluation dated April 23,1990.

Docket No. 36381 Duane Arnold Technical Specificatioria.

No significant hasards consideration Energy, Center, Una County, lows Date ofinitialnoticein Federal comments received:No.

Register: February 7,1990 (55 FR 4268)

LocalPublic Document Room Date of applicationforamendment ne Corcmission's related evaluation of locadon: Thomas Valley State Technical June 10,1986 the amendments is contained in a safety College,874 New London Turnpike, Brie {descriptw, n of amendment:The

{'7gy'[,

• [d p au0n da Evaluetion dated April 26,1990.

Norwich, Connecticut 06300.

9, pp No significanthazards considemuon GPU Nuclear Corporation Docket No.

49 for the Duane Arnold Energy Center So7/u$1fc l

eirtRoom as aae, news Mlle taland Nuclear from June 21,2010 to February 21,2014.

location: B. F. Jones Memorit,I Ubrary' station, Unit No.3 (TMI 2), Dauphin Dateofissuance April 23,1990 663 Franklin Avenue. Aliquippa, County, Pennsylvania Effective date: April 23,1990 Penneylvanla 1900t, Date of applicationforamendment:

Amendment No.:164 November 23,1988 Facility Operating Ucense No. DPR.

M Power Corpwation, et al, Docket No. 86303 Crystal River Unit Briefdescription of amendment:ne 4A Amendment revised the Ucense.

amendment modified Appendix A Date ofinlualnoticein Federal l

No. 8 Nuclear hoorating Plant, Otmo Technical Specifica tions allowing the Register: August 9,1989 (54 FR 32712)

Couoy,Flwide consolidation of the D411 and TMI.2

%e Commission's related evaluation of Date of application for amendment:

Radiological Controls Departments into the amendment is contained in a Safety October 31,1969 a site organization.

Evaluation dated April 23,1990 and an Brief description of amendment:This Dateofissuance April 26,1990 Environmental Assessment dated April amendment revises TS 4.0.2 by removing Effectivedate April 26,1990 13.1990 (55 FR 15046).

4 the provieion (formerly in 4.0.2.b) that Amendment No.:38 No sigt ificant hazards consideration limited the combined time interval for facility Operating Ucense No. DPR.

comments received:No.

three consecutive surveillances to less

73. Amendment revised the Technical LocalfublicDocument Room than 3.25 times the specified interval.

Specifications.

location Cedar Rapids Public Ubrary, Date ofissuance: April 25,1990 Date ofinitialnotice in Federal 600 First Street S.E., Cedat Rapids,lowa Effective date: April 25,1990 Register: February 7,1990 (55 FR 4270).

52401, Amendment No.:128 The Commission's related evaluation of facility Operating Ucense No. DPR.

this amendment is contained in a Safety lowa Electric Ught and Power Company,

72. Amendment revised the Technical Evaluation dated April 20,1990.

Docket No. 80 831. Duane Arnold Specifications.

No significant hazards consideration Energy, Center, Una County,lowa Date ofinitialnotice in Federal comments received: No.

Date of applicationfor cmendment:

Register: February 7,1990 (55 FR 4209)

Loca/Public Document Room i

The Commission's related evaluation of location: Government Publications June 30,1987, as revised September 1, 198g the amendment is contained in a Safety Section, State Ubrary of Pennsylvania, Bric/ description of amendment:The Evaluation dated April 25,1990.

Walnut Street and Commonwealth amendment revised the Duane Arnold No significant hazards consideration Avenue, Box 1601, liarrisburg, Energy Center Technical Specifications comments received No.

Pennsylvania 17105.

(TSs) to conform with model TSs 40 on tI bl.ibrary*

Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe relating to control room habitability 068 N.W.First Avenue Crystal River Power Corporation, Municipal Electric recommended in NRC Generic Letter 83 Florida 32629 AuthmHy of Gewsla, City of Dalton, Me Wons We changes in l

Georgia. Docket No. 89 821. Edwin 1.

nomenclature for consistency with GPU Nur. lear Corporation, et al., Docket Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 1. Appling current surveillance procedures, No. 80 219 Oyster Creek Nuclear County, Georgla clarification of existing surveillance Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey Date of applicationfor amendment-requirements, and the addition of a requirement to demonstrate that the Date of applicationfor amendment:

yYre

• • '***"'#"Y e

ion of amendment:The February 23,1990 amendment revises Technical isolated and maintained at a positive Briefdescription of amendment:The Specification Tables 3.2 9 and 4.2-9.

Pressure upon receipt of a high radiation amendment modifies the Oyster Creek Date ofissuance: A ril 27,1990

• 8"'

• Effect:vedate Aprif27,1990 Date ofissuance: April 26,1990 Neclear Genersting Station Technical Specifications to remove the 3.25 limit AmendmentNo 109 Effective date: April 26,1990 on extending surveillance intervals and Facility Operating ucense No. DPR.

Amendment %:165 to add the bases for the existing

57. Amendment revised the Technical facilityOper fingUcenseNo.DPR.

allowance,in accordance with the Specifications.

49. Amendment revised the Technical guidance contained in NRC Generic Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Specifications.

Letter 8914, dated August 21,1989.

Register: March 7,1990 (55 FR 8225) The Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Effect:[vedate April 23,1990Date o Issuance: April 23.1990 Commission's related evaluation of the Register: December 27,1989 (54 FR amendment is contained in a Safety 53208) The Commission's related AmendmentNo. 138 Evaluation dated April 27,1990.

evaluation of the amendment is ProvisionalOperating Ucense No.

No significant hazards consideration conteined in a Safety Evaluation dated DPR.to. Amendment revised the comments received: No.

April 26,1990.

Technical Specifications.

LocalPublicDocument Room No significant hazards consideration Date ofinitialnotice in Federal location: Appling County Public Library, comments received:No.

Register: March 21.1990 (55 FR 10533) 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia LocalPublic Document Room De Commission's related evaluation of 31513 location: Cedar Rapide Public Librag, i

l aos?e Fedesel Register / Vol. as, No. 95 / Wednesday, heey 18,1eso / Notices n00 nrst St=t, B.S., Cedar Rapids, lows Nerebum States Power Osnabe Pubbe Power Distrtet.Dahet

5240s, Donket No,58 30s, N=har No,Sp. ass Fat Calhous Station, Unit uns bland W Cosmpmay, W Plant, Weight Ceumey, No.1, Weeblastan County, Nobesaka No. 86833, Sbssehem N=amar Power Dode of amendsesnt request:

Station, Unit 1.Suffolk Coumey, New Date of applicadonfor amende:ent:

December 3.D,19s0 as supplemented vork December 1 1=

us,a ri.1 Date of applicottonforamendment:

1. f n\\

ses c5

. frie desc den o madman &

a.Arl=latatrative Controls" of the facihtF

.me luly 15,im Specification 2.12, Control Room Bric ecripdon ofonendment. This Technical Specifications to pennit the Systema, which applied to contml rooms amen t revised Technical Shift Technical Advisor (STA) function air conditioning and filtering systems.

Specifications 3/4.8.1. A.C. Sources,to to be performed by one of the two co-N amendment oceaervatively lowered adopt staff recommended changes to shift Senior Reactor Operatora (SROs),

the maximura limit for control room att improve and monitor diesel generator This eliminates the requirement for a temperature (from 120' F to 105' F) upon reliability (Generic Latter 84-15).

dedicated STA to be on site when one of which the licensee is required to take Date ofissuones* April 20,1950 the shift SROs la qualified as an STA-action.His change was necessary in Effectiw date: April 30,1990 Date ofissuance:May 1,1990 order to more accurately direct the Amendmer:t Na S Effecder dote:May 1,1980 application of the technical specification facility Operating Ucense Na NPF.

Amendment Na:13 to k equipaeat it was originally A2. His amendment revised the facility Operatim Ucanse Na DPR.

intended to address.

Technical Specifications.

I'. Amendment revised the Technical Date ofiniuolnoticein Federal Specifications.

Date ofissuance:May 2,1990 Registen December 30,1988 (53 FR Date ofinitialnoticein Federal 2)fecure dater May 2,1990 53094) The Commission's related Registen january 24,1990 (55 PR 2430)

Amendment Na:130 evclustion of the amendment is The Commission's related evaluation of racility OperatimucenseNa DPR-contained in a Safety Evaluation dated the amendment is contained in a Safety da Amendment revised the Technical April 20,1900.

Evaluation dated May 1.1400.

Specifications.

No significant hazards considewtion No significant hosords consideration Date ofinitialnoticein Federal comments received: No concentsreceived No.

Registen March 7,1990 (55 FR 8229) The LocalPublic Document Room LocalPublic Document Roern March 21,1990 submittal provided locauon: Shoreham Wading River Public location: Minneapolis Public 1.orary, additional clarifying information and did Ubrary, Route 25A, Shoreham, New Technology and Science Department, not change the staff a original finding of Yerk 11786 9007, 300 Nicollet Mall, Mmneapolis, no significant hasards consideration or Minnesota 6540t.

alter the action needed.N Niagara Mohawk Power C.a, J'-

Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Polat-Omaha Public Power District Docket Commission's related evaluation of the Nucieer Station Unit No.1, Oswego No. 36 2s5 Fort Calhoun Statlan Unit amendment is contained in a Safety County, New York No.1, Weakington County, Nebraska Ev.luation dated May 2,1990.

No significent hasards consideration Date ofapplicationfor amendment:

Date of amendment reques uary comments received: No.

December 8,1989 24,1990 ae supplemented Ma 29,1990 LocalPublic Doc'iment Room Brief description of amendment:This amefownt sedescrip amendment:%

Br location:W. Dele Clark Ubrary.215 the provision of South 15th Street, Omaha, Nebraska amendment revises Technical SpIcification Appendix A.Section 3.3.1 Specification 3.n1 that limits tlw 68102 end associated Bases so that oxygen combined time interval for any three concentration in the primary consecutive surveillances to less than Padfic Gas and Electric Company, containment atmosphere is expressed in 3.25 times the specified interval.

Docke Noa. 55 275 and 55 323.Diablo ercent by volume rather than percent Dateofiasuance April 27,1990 Canyce Narlaar Power Plant, Units 1 y weight. It also deletes a reference to Effective dote: April 27,1990 and 2. S n Luis Obispo County, Amendment Na:129 Caliform ~

Facility Operatim ucense Na DPR*

Date of 'pplication for amenetments:

s, 4

58 dm8DI 188d LI"T8 hDIC*I Effectivedate April 25,1990 july 15 ana December 1.1989, and April

$t of$ofnotininFederal Amendment No.1115 Facility Operaum License Na DPR-Registen March 7,1990 (55 FR 8231)%

amenf,desuipuon of amendowntsMe

1. 'I' 83: Amendment revises the Technical March 29,1990, submittal provided ents mised the hchnical Specifications.

additional clarifying information and did en na to abw deuon he Date afinitic/noucein Federal not change the staffs original finding of boric acid concentration in the boric ac tad mm twelve to four we@

Register: March 21,1990 (55 FR 10641) no significant hazards consideration or he Commission's related evaluation of alter the action needed.W

Percent, the amendment is contained in a Safety Commission's related evaluation of the D0fe 0[I88808Cet Apd 26 N Evaluation dated April 25,1990.

amendment is contained in a Safety Effective dote: April 26,1990 No significant hasards consideration Evaluation dated April 27,1990.

Amendments Nos.:53 and 52 comments received:No No significant hazards consideration Facilities Operating Ucense Noe.

LocalPublic Document Room comments received:No.

DPR.80 and DPR.82. Amendments locadon: Reference and Documents LocalPublic Document Room changed the Technical Specifications.

Department, penfield Ubrary, State location:W. Dale Clark Ubrary,215 Date ofinitialnoticein Federal University of New York, Oswego, New South 15th Street Omaha, Nebraska Reginten August 9,1999 (54 FR 32713)

York 13128.

68102 The Commission's related evaluation of e

Federal Regleter / Vtl 55. Nr. 95 / Wednreday. May 16, 1990 / N:tices 303'/1 the anandments is contained in a Safety LocalpublicDocument Room 100 Martine Avenue, White Pla!ns. New Evaluation dated Apr0 26.1990, location:Penfield Ubrary, State York.1osto.

No significant hasarifs consideration University College of Oswego Osweso.

Power Authority of De State of New comments received No, New York.

York. Docket No sp. ass,ladian Point Loco /PublicDocument Room Power Authority of the State of New Unit No. 8. Westchester County, New location: California Polytechnic Stato York. Docket No. BD ass, James A.

York University Ubrary. Government PitaPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Date of apphmuonfor amendment Documents and Maps Deprrtment. San Oswego County.New York February it.1990 1,uis Obispo. Califomia 93407.

Date of applicationforamendment:

Brief description of amendment:The PWla'lairMa Electric Cosapany. Docket Janua 12.1990 amendment revises the Technical No. 88 333. Umarick Gemarating Station, description of amendment:%is Specifications to remove the statement Unit 1. Montgomery County, amen ent allows the main steamline which limits the allowable extension for Pennsylvania high radiation monitor trip level three consecutive surveillance intervals Date of applicationforamendment setpoints to be increased during to 3.25 times the specified surveillance December 29.198g Operating Cycle to to facilitate a testing interval.The change also removes the Briefdescr/puon of amendment %is Program which will periodically add statement which excludes shift and amendment changed the Technical hydrogen to the reactor coolant to daily surveillances from the 25-percent Specifications to specify the revised determine its effectiveness as an allowance to extend surveillance time period far which the reactor inhibitor ofintergranular stress intervals.

pressure vessel pressure temperatur, corrosion cracking.

Date oflasuance: April 26,1E90 operating limit curves are valid.

Date o[ issuance: A{ril 30.1990Effecure date: April 26,1990 4

Date ofissuance: A ril 30,1990 do,tk priA,gg Amendment No.:97 E

80,1990 Effective date: Ap 20.1990 Facility Operoung Ucense Na DPR.

Facility Operating Ucense Na DPR.

oc 1 ty Eng Ucense Na NPF-89: Amendment tevised the Technical N: Amendment revised the Technical dm'"

• • d th*

Specification.

Specifications.

Date ofinitialnotionin Federal Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Te ical Spectflca Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal RegisterMarch 7,1W55 m 3235]the The Register: March 21,1990 (55 FR 10544)

Commission's related evaluation o

%e Commission's related evaluation of Register: February 7.1990 (55 FR 4274)

De Commission's related evaluation of amendment is contained in a Safety the amendment is contained in a Safety d

f Evaluation dated April 30.1990.

Evaluauon dated April 26.1990.

No signifiwnthasards considemuon No significant hotards considention m untio da 1

1990.

" " Y c' No sisnificant hazards considention Loc neatRoom LocalPublicDocumentRoom l

comments received:No loc tion:Penfield Ubrary.Stste locadon: White Plains Public Ubrary, LocalPublic Document Room location: Pottstown Public Ubrary, 500

• ",If*

Hege of Oswego. Oswego, 100 Martine Avenue. White Plains. New y,

High Street.Pottstown Pennsylvania York.10610.

19464.

Power Authority of De State of New Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket

. Nos. 30 827 and go.328..4quoyah Power Authority of the State of New g,,

Nuclear Plant. Units 1 and 2, Hamilton York. Docket No,30 333, James A.

York FitaPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.

County, Tennessee Oswego County, New York f a pl donforamendment:

Date of application for amendments:

Date of applicationforamendment:

Brief description of amendment:The October 5.1990 and the supplementkl January 12,1990 amendment revises the Technical letter dated April 9.1990 (TS 89-36).

Brief description of amendment:%e Spectfications to modify the Brief description of amendments:The amendment replaces the existing applicability of action requirements for amendments modify Section 3/414.

Reactor Vessel Pressure. Temperature Umiting Conditions for Operation (l.CO) Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio, and Table Umit curves with new curves for associated with missed Surveillance 3.5-1. Reactor Trip System operation to 12.14 and to effective full Requirements. Time limits ofIEO action instrum,ntation,of the Sequoyah power years and revises the requirements will be applied at the time Nuclear Plant (SQN) Units 1 and 2.

corresponc'.ing umiting Condition for a missed surveillance is identified.

Technical Specifications (TSs). The Operation and Bases section to reflect Date ofissuance: April 17.1990 changes revise the action statements in the new pressure-temperature limits.

Effecure date: April 17,1990 Table 3.5-1 for quadrant pow r :llt ratio Date ofissuance: April 26.1990 Amendment Na 96 monitoring when power range Effective date: April 26,1990 Facility Opwds Ucense Na DPR.

Instrumentation is inoperable to provide Amendment No. 158 N: Amendment revised the Technical a consistent set of actions to be taken Facility Opemug Limse Na DPR-Specifications, when the quadrant power tilt ratio is not 59-Amendment revised tne Technical Date ofinitialnoticein Federal monitored or confirmed in accordance Specification.

Register: February 8.1989 (54 FR 8204) with either Surveillance Requirement Date ofinitialnoticein Federal The Commission's related evaluation of (SR) 414.1 or 4141 This adds two Register: March 7.1990 (55 FR 8233) The the amendmen1is contained in a Safety action stateme..ts to TS 3/414. Dere is Commission's related evaluation of the Evaluation dated April 17.1990.

also a change to SR 4.2.4.2 to allow a full amendment is contained in a Safety No significant hazards considemtion core map using the incore detector Evaluation dated April 26.1990.

comments received:No system,instead of only the currently No significant hazards considention LocalPublic DocumentRoom requlted four palts of aymmetric thimble comments received: No locadon: White Plains Public Ubrary, locations, to confirm the normalized

norrs' Federal Register / Vol. 55 No. 85 / Wedneedey, May 16,2000/ N:ticas i

sysunstric power distribution la the Briefdescr(prion of---u-wW entry into the increased testing

core, amendments modify Section 8/4.a.

frequen Date ofissuonw: A 27,1990 Electric Power Systems, of the Sequoyah Dose e. issaanch: Apr0 30,19e0 EfFeetne dete:A E7,1930 Nuclear Plant Technical Specification Effec:ive dote: April 30,seco AmendmentNos.135,122

('Ilis) to allow the cleaning of the AmendmentNa 27 Facility Operatig 'Ja===== Nos.

emergency diesel generster (DG) feel ou Foo#ity CperatiqucenseNa NFF.

DPR 77andDPR-7R Amendments storage tanka %e ebenges odd a ga. nis amanament revised the revised the Technical Speci6cationa.

footnote to the 73-boer operabibty Technical Specincedons.

Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal requirements in Action Statement "a" of Date afinitiolnoticein Fedesel Register: November 1,1989 (54 FR Limiting Condition for Operetion 8A1.1.

Register. Apr0 6,1988 (53 FR 11377) ne 46188),b Commiselon's related

%e footnote states that the 72-hour Ca==l==lon's related evaluation of the evduation of the amendmentis requirement to return the ahernating amendraent is contained in a Safety contained in e Safety Evaluation dated circuit power sources to spa..' le status Evaluation dated Apr0 30,1990.

Apru 27,1990.

before an operating unit amat begin No significant hozoids consideration No eign/ficont hazards considemtion shutting down may he extended to 144 commente received No I

comments received No houre for performing Surveinance LocalPublicDocumentRoom LocalPubhcDocument Room Requirement (SR) 4A1.1.2.Lt.his BR is locotion: Perry Public Ubrary,3753 Main location: Chattanoose-Hamuton County the 'I1i regairement for cleaning the DG Street, Perry, Ohio 44081 -

Library,1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, fuel storage tanka.

Tennessee 37402.

nose amendments are beingissued N Clevolend Electric Bluminating 889 "

q ste er o

n Hamlhon County, Tennessee concluded at exigent circ===ta==

anip No. 30 440, Perry i

Date of applicationforamendment existed because of the importance of the Nuclear Power Plent, Unit No.1, Lake jtnuary 12.1990 which superceded the DGs to plant safety and the potential County, Ohio i

application dated December 2,1988 (Ili deterioration of the fuel oil from the Date ofwhoodonfor amendment-ri descripdon of amendment:%e

$te isnuance:A 27,1980 amen ent modifies the Sequoyah Effec e ciate Ap 1990 g,

Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Technical Amendment Nos.:137,123 Specifications. The changes revise the Facility Opemting Ucanses Nos.

Isoleum Cmung @CIC) Equipment.

trip setpoint and allowable value units DPR 77andDPR 7R Amendments Roosn Differential Tempera ture isolation for the intermediate range (IR) nuclear revised the Technical Specifications.

Actuation lastrumentation Trip Setpoint 2

Dux detector and revise the applicability Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal and Allowable Value in Table 312-2 of requirements for the source range (SR)

Register: Apr012.1990 (55 FR 13888) the Technical S cincationa.no new set oint would in effect for year.

P nuclear flux detector, ne proposed

%e Commission's related evaluation of chrnges for Sequoyah Unit 2 in the the amendment is contained in a Safety round operation.N current setpoint is application will be acted on during the Evaluation dated April 27,1990.

only in effect until Lake, Erie Unit 2 Cycle 4 refuehng outage after the No signifioont hasards considemtiose temperature reaches 55 F.

IR/SR equipment is replaced in the comments received No Date ofissuance:May 4,1990 cutage, his application revised TVA's LocalPublicDocumentRoom Effective date:May 4,1990 submittal deted December 2,1988, which location: Chattanooga-Hamilton County AmendmentNo. 28 w:s noticed in the Federal Register on Library,1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, facility Opemting Ucense No. NPF.

D cember 30,1988 (53 FR 53100).

T6nnessee 37402.

88. This amendment revised the Clewland Electric Bluminadog Da e i la ce n Federal

/ ci ve d p

2, Company, Duquene Ught Company, Registen April 4,1990 (55 FR 12002). b Amendment No.:130 dison Com Penney vania Commission's related evaluation of the facility OpemtingUcense No. DPR-77 Amendment revised the Technical

Company, amendment is contained in a Safety Campany Docket No.36 448, Perry Evaluetion dated May 4,1990.

Sptcifications'o!nouwin Federal N**I**'

• • ' 'I** U*I' N*' L*k*

No significont hasards considemtion Date ofiniti Register: February 7,1990 (55 PR 4278).

w D' commenis seceived:No The Cc nmission's related evaluation of Date ofapplicationforamendment:

LocalPublic DocumentRoom thi amendment is contained in a Safety February 9,1968 location. Perry Public Ubrary,3753 Main Ev:.luation dated April 27,1990.

Briefdescription ofamendment:b Street, Perry, Ohio 44081 No significanthosords considemuon amendment modifies Table 4.8.1.1.21 of comments received:No the Technical Specifications ('lli) related Union Electdc Company, Docket No.80-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway to testing frequency of the amefseven Couny, Mesourt Loco 1Public Document Room acy diesel generators.The criteria o location: Chattanooga 4(amilton County Library,1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, consecutive failure-free demamle and Date of applicationforamendment Tennessee 37402 reducing the number of failures in the November 14,1989 last 20 valid demands to less than or Briefdescription of amendmen1:The Tennessee Vaney Authority, Docket equal to one for returning to the normal amendment revised technical Nos. 50 327 and 50-228, Sequoyah monthly test frequency applies no specifications section 3/4.7.1.2 to add Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. HamHton matter which of the criterion (greater clarification to Surveillance Canty Tenne""

than or equal to 2 failures in the last 20 Requirements 4.7.111.a(4) and l

Date of applicadon for amendments:

tests or greater than or equal to 5 4.7.111.b(1) by identifying automatic April 5,1990 (TS 9008) failures in the last 100 tests) caused valves that are either excluded or

l

. Fedesel Regleter / Vol. 58, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 16, 1990 / Notloes 30373 includedin the flow path of the remains under review frons the trip functions may be satisfied by Auxiliary Feedwater tem whose licensee's application.

administratively controlling the position has to be to Date ofissuonos Apru as,1980 positions of the detectors and by demeestrate operability.

Affsativedree AprG38,1000 verifying those positions visually. ne Dade oflasuance: A 38,1990 Amendment No.140 bases section for the technical Effective does:

36,1990 Focuity 4MoonaeNo.DPR-specification is amended to include the Amendnent No.:63

,12 Amendment revised the Technical circumstances for utilizing the Foc#ity Cperatig Ucense Na NPF-Specifications.

alternative for the channel functional Ja Amendment revised theTechnical Date ofinigolmotsoein Federal test.

Specifications.

Register: February 31,1990 (65 PR 6124)

Dateofissuance April 20,1990 t

Date ofiniuolnoucein Federal he 'an-laalan s related evaluation of r

Effecure date: Apr0 30,19WO

(

Register. january 24,1990 (55 FR 2449) the amendment is contained in a Safety Amendment No.:81 ne Co==laaion's related evaluation of Evaluation dated Apru 26,1990.

the amendment is contained in a Safety No s&nificant hasards consideration Facility Operausg UcenseNo. NPF.

Evaluation dated AprG 26,1990.

comments received: No 21:A--- Mts changed the Technical No s&nificanthascnis considention LocalPublicDocumentRoom Specifications.

commandereceived No.

locotion:Swem Ubrary. College of Dode afinidolnoticein Federal Loco /MlicDocument Room W!!!!am and Mary, Williamsburg, Register. February y,1990 (65 FR 4287) locauon:Callaway County Public Virginia 23185 W Corn =laalon's related evaluation of Ubrary, y10 Court Street, Fulton.

Missouriessal and the John M.O Virglais Elseeds and Powse Conspany, the amendment is contained in a Safety Doaket Nos.SS age and 50 801, Barry Evaluation dated April 20,1990.

er St 1 l's.

Power Station, Unit Nos.1 and 3, Surry No significant hosords consideration ad un'd 11 t

Mimourt e3130.

County, Virgiais.

comirents received:No.

Date of applioodonforamendments:

LocalPuMicDocument Room i

Verment Yemkao Nuclear Poww December 29,19e9 location: Richland City Ubrary, Swift Corposeties, Dod6st No. 30171, Briefdescription of amendmenis and Northgate Stmets.Richland.

Verment Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Rose amendments delineate the Washington 99352.

Vernon, Varescat surveillance requirements for the Date of applicationfor amendment-emergency diesel generator load Washlaston Public Power Supply March 2.1990 sequencing mod fication completed in System, Docket No. 30.se7, Nuclear 19e9 Project No.3 Bestan County,

,", h}'

',#3 Dofe lasvance!May 1,1990 Washington Specifications ('lli) and their related Nndment

'[4 and g Date of applicationforamendment:

8*

Beses.8pectfleaUy it removes the FaciHty Operatim LicenseNos. DPR.

Ockbn 37,1989 aganisation charts fwm the 32 andDPR.37:Amendmente revised the Brief description of amendment: This adminletrative contml requirements of Technical Specifications.

amendment revises Surveillance the TS.

Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Requirement 4.0.2 by deleting the Date issuance April 25,1990 Register: March 21,1990 (55 FR 10547) general requirement that the combined Kffee ve dote: April 25.1990 The Commission's related evaluation of time interval for any three consecutive

[**"# N" I"y,,,

the amendment is contained in a Safety surveillance intervals shall net exceed g, ppg

• • "'U" d'I'd M*Y I's c"ons'ideration 3.25 tima the speclSed suneulance I

28. Ame r sed the echnical No s&nificanthosoid interval.He corresponding beses Specifications'olnotice in Federal camnents reived:No section is revised to set forth the basis Date ofiniti Im MicDocumentRoom for ensuring that surveillancas are Register: March 21.1990 (55 FR 10646).

• ###8"'"

Y ' '8' 'I Mary,"Will'iamsburg.

performed in a timely manner.

%e Commission's related evaluation of W

a

. Date ofissuonoo: Apru 26,1990 the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Apr0 25,1990.

Effective dois: April 26,1990 No s&nificant hasards consideration Wanklagtom Public Power Supp'1 AmendmentNo.:82 commenis moeired No System. Docket No. 35 897, Nuclear LocalPublicDocument Room Project No.3 Beaton County, Fuuhy Opewung Ucense Na M.

location: Brooks Memorial Ubrary, 224 _ Wasideston 21 Amendments changed the Technical S

• ti ns.

Main Street. Brattleboro, Vermont 05301.

Date of aMicadonfor amendment.-

f Virgiale Electric and Power Camp==y,

• "k'd 29, 989 as su emented by Register. December 27,1989 (54 FR 52314) he Commission's related Docket No. Se,ses. Burry Power Station, Brief description of amendment:his evaluation of the amendmentis Unit No.1, Surry County, Virginia.

amendment revises Technical Date of applicationforamendment:

Specification 3/4.3.6, " Control Rod Block e ntained in a Safety Evaluation dated A ru 26,19ea P

Janua 8.1990 instrumentation." by modifying the Bri description of amendment:%e requirement for performance of the No significant hasards consideration amen ont postpones the requirement charmel functional test for two trip commente sweeind No.

to cycle and verify open each weight.

functions during certain conditions.

LocalpublicDocument Room loaded check valve in the Containment When WNP.2 is in mode 5, the channel location: Richland City Ubrary, Swift and Recirculation Sprey Systems until functional test for the source range and and Northgate Streets Richland, the next refueling outage. One issue intermediate range monitor not full in Washington 99352.

l 1

2 30r74 Federal Register / Vd. 55, No. 85 / Wednesday May 16, 1990 / N:tices NOTICE OFISSUANCE OF requested, it is so stated. In either event. Commission's Rules of Practice for AMENDMENT TO FACIUTY the State has been consulted by DomestictJoensias Proceedings" in to OPERATINGIJCENSE AND FINAL telephone whenever possible.

CFR Part 2. If a request for a hearing or DrfERMINATION OF NO Under its regulations, the Commission Petition for leave to intervene is filed by SIGNIFICANT HAEARDS mayissue and make an amendment the above date, the Commission or an CONSIDERATION AND immediately effective, notwithstanding Atomic Safe and Licensing Board, OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING the pendency before it of a request for a designated b the Commission or by the (EKlGENT OR EMERGENCY hearing from any person,in advance of Chairman of Atomic Safety and i

CIRCUMSTANCES) the holding and completion of any -

Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the During the period since publication of required hearing, where it has request and/or peution and the the last tnweekly notice, the determined that no significant hazards Secretary or the designated Atomic Commission has issued the following consideration is involved.

Safety and Licensing Board willissue a ce of hearing or an appropriate n[/~sr quired by10CFR2314 a caendments.no Commission has ne Commission has applied the e ppficationforthe standards of to CFR 80.92 and has made e

e dments th a final determination that the petition for leave to intervene shall set emendment complies with the standards amendment involves no significant forth with particularity the laterest of cnd requirements of the Atomic Ene hasards consideration.The basis for this the petitioner in the proceeding and bew Act of19H as amended (the Act), a determination is contained in the -

that interest may be effected by the i

the Commission's rules and regulations.

documents related to this action.

results of the proceeding.De petition

%e Commission has made appropriate Acmrdingly, the anwndments have been should specifically explain the reasons findings as required by the Act and the issued and made effective as indicated.

why intervention should be permitted Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter 1, which are set forth in the UAless otherwise indlCated, the with particular reference to the licinse amendment. -

Commission has determined that these following factors:(1) the nature of the Because of exigent or emergency amendments satisfy the criteria for petitioner's right under the Act to be circumstances associated with the date categorical exclusion in accordance made a party to the proceeding, (2) the I

the amendment was neded, there was with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefere, pursuant nature and extent of the petitioner's not time for the Commission to publish, to 10 CFR 61.22(b), no environmental property, financial, or other interest in for public conunent before issuanca,its impact statement or environmental the proceeding: and (3) the possible usual 30-day Notice of Consideration of assessment need be prepared for these effect of any order which may be Issuance of Amendment and Proposed amendments. If the Commission has entered in the proceeding on the N3 Significant Hazards Consideration prepared an environmental assessment petitioner's interest.The petition should Determination and Opportunity for a under the special circumstances also identify the specific aspect (s) of the H:aring. For exigent circumstances, the provision in 10 CFR 41.12(b) and has subject matter of the proceeding as to Commission has either issued a Federal made a determination based on that which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Register notice providing opportunity for assessment,it is so indicated.

Any person who has filed a petition for leave tointervene or who has been public comment or has used local media For further details with respect to the to provide notice to the public in the action see (1) the application for admitted as a party may amend the crea surrounding a licensee's facility of amendment,(2) the amendment to petition without requesting leave of the the licensee's application and of the Facility Operating 1.lcense, and (3) the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the Commission's proposed determination Commission's related letter, Safety first prehearing conference scheduled in of no significant hazards consideration.

Evaluation and/or Environmental the proceeding, but such an amended ne Commission has provided a Assessment, as indicated. AB of these Petition must satisfy the specificity re:sonable opportunity for the public to items are available im public inspection requirements described above.

comment using its best efforts to make at the Commission's Public Document laterested persons should consult a available to the public means of Room, the Celman Building 2120 L current copy of10 CFR 2514 which is communication for the public to respond Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the avallable at the Commission's Public quickly, and in the case of telephone local public document room for the Document Room, the Gelman Building, c mments, the comments have been particular facility involved.

F120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC ricorded or transcribed as a propriate 20555 and at the local Public Document end the licensee has been i ormed of A copy ofitems (2) and (3) may t>e Rooin for the particular facility involved.

th1 public comments, obtained upon requcht mitesned Io the

.%t later than fifteen (15) days prior to in circumstances where failure to act UA Nuclear Reguhitory Comna.icn, the first prehearing conference L

in a timely way would have resulted, for Washington,DC 20555. Attention:

scheduled in ee proceeding, a petiticar example,in derating or shutdown of a Director. Division of Reactor Projects, shall file a supplement to the petition to nuclear power plant or in prevention of b Commissionis also offering an intervene which must include a list of r

either resumption of operation or of c;Tortunity for a hearing with respect to the contentions which are sought to be increase in power output up to the the lasuance of the amendments. By June litigated in the matter.Each contention pl:nt's licensed power level.the 15,1990, the licensee may file a request must consist of a specific statement of Commission may not have had an for a hearing with respect to issuance of the issue oflaw or fact to be raised or cpportunity to provide for public the amendment to the subject facility controverted. In addition. the petitioner.

comment on its no significant hazards operating license and any person whose shall provide a brief explanation of the

~

dttermination. In such case, the license interest may be affected by this bases of the contention and a concise cmendment has been issued without proceeding and who wishes to statement of the alleged facts or expert cpportunity for comment. If there has participate as a party in the proceeding opinion which support the contention been some time for public comment but must file a written petition for leave to and on which the petitioner intends to less than 30 days, the Commission may intervene. Requests for a hearing and rely in proving the contention at the provide an opportunity for public petitions for leave to intervene shall be hearing.The petitioner must also comment. lf comments have been filed in accordance with the provide references to those toecific k

h

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. es / Wednesday, May 16, 1990 / Notices 3e375 souroso and daa=nants of which the absent a determination by the public commsats requestedas to petitioneris aware and on whnh the Comadssics, the proolding officer or the proposedno a1,;nificant hasanfs petitioner latends to rely to establish Atonde Safety and 1.lconsing Board, that consideration:No.ne Commission's those facts or expert opinion. PetitWo*r the petition and/or regue,st should be related evaluation of the amendment, t

must provide sufBcient information to granted based u a casancmg of the consultation with the State of New show that a genulas dispute exists with factors in 10 CFR LF14(a)(1)(i}. jersey and final no signincant hasards the applicant on a materialissue of law 1

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to (v) and 1.714(d).

consideration determination are matters within the scope of the Arisons Public Servios Compmay, et al.

contained in a Safety Evaluation dated amendments under canalderation. no W

April 30,1990, Nd Genera

Station, t1 Attorneyforlicensse Connerand I

te U

to reli A County, Ariacea Wetterbahn 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, petitioner who fel to file such a Date of applicationforamendment:

Washington, DC 20006 supplement which natisfies tbese April 30,1990 LocolpublicDocumentRoom requirements with respect to at least one sciefdescription ofamendmentine Location: Salem Free Public Lib ary,112 c:ntention will not be permitted to Amendment revises surveillance WestBroadway Salem,NewJsrsey participate as a party'ntervene become requirement 4.4.1.4.2 of Til 3/4.4.1.4, 08079.

i nose permitted toi

Reacto' Coolant System 4'old NRCPm/ectDirector: Water R.

r parties to the proceeding, subject to anY Shutdown" by decreasing the required Butler limitations in the order granting leave to shutdown cooling flowrote from 4000 Dated at Rockville, Maryteri this 9th day intervene, and have the opW.;.y to spm to 2000gpm on a one-time basis of May tes(L i

pIrticipate fully in the conduct of the h:aring, including the opportunity to until initial entry into Mode 2 for Cycle For the Nuclear Regulator / Commission 3.

present evidence and croes-examine Steven A.Varga, witnenes.

Date ofissuance:May 4,1990 Myectare date:May 4.1990 Director. Division ofReactor Projects.1/lb Since the Commission has made a AmendmentNo.:48 officrofNuclearnocctorkwulation final determination that the amendment involves no significant hasards Pacility Opemting License No. NPF.

(hcE11246 Fuen 5-tm tes am]

47: Amendment revised the Technical name commsese consideration,if a hearing is requested, Specifications.

It will not stay the effectiveness of the Public comment requestados to inendment. Any hearing held would proposednosignificanthazards t:ke place while the amendment is in effect.

considemtion:No.ne Commission's A request for a hearing or a petition related evaluation of the amendment.

f:r leave to intervene must be filed with finding of emergency circumstances, the Secretary of the Commission U.S.

consultation with the State of Arizona,.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and final determination of no significant Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

hazards consideration are contained in Docketing and Services Branch, or may a Safety Evaluation dated May 4,1990.

be delivered to the Commission's Public Attorneys forlicensee: Mr. Arthur C.

Document Room, the Gelman Building, Gehr Sneu a Wilmer,3100 Valley Center, Phoenix, Arizona 85007.

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by LocalPublicDocumeniRoom th) above date. Where petitions are filId during the last ten (10) days of the location: Phoenix Public Library, l

notice period,it is requested that the Business and Science Division,12 East 4

petitioner promptly so inform the McDowellRoad, Phoenix. Arizona 850(M.

Qommission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 325-8000 (in Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Missouri 1.(800) 342-6700). The Western Docket No. 30 811. Salem Generating Union operator should be given Station, Unit No. 3, Salem County, New Datagram Identification Number 3737 Jersey tad tne following message addressed to Date ofApplicationforamendment:

' t Disctor): petitioner's name and Janua 4,1990 tel hone number; date petition was Bri description ofamendment:%e ma d: plant name; and publication date and page number of this Federal amen ment changed the Technical SpeciGcations to allow Unit 2 to Register notice. A copy of the petition sh:uld also be sent to the Office of the complete the fourth fuelcycle with General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear maximum charging pump flow Regulatory Commission, Washington, exceeding the technical specifications DC 20655, and to the attorney for the limit of 550 grm by less the 1E licensee.

Dateoffsauance April 20,1990 Effective Date: April 20,1990 Nontimely filings of petitions for leave AmendmentNo.t 36 13 intervene, amended petitions.

Facility Operating License No. DPR.

supplemental petitions and/or requests f:r hearing will not be entertained 75: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

,