ML20081F183
| ML20081F183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1983 |
| From: | Kuncl L NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| To: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20081F187 | List: |
| References | |
| LQA8300238, NUDOCS 8311020380 | |
| Download: ML20081F183 (4) | |
Text
c 4=_ Nebraska Public Power District GENERAL OFFICE
"~""ksYoTA#E^E^""""
m October 26, 1983 LQA8300238 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Operating Reactors Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention:
Mr. Domenic B. Vassallo, Chief
Reference:
1)
Letter from D. E. Schaufelberger to J. T. Collins dated August 15,
- 1983, Response to Order Modifying License; Management Appraisal of Corporate Management
Attachment:
1)
Evaluation of Technical Specification Change with Respect to 10CFR50.92
Dear Mr. Vassallo:
Subject:
Proposed Change No. 8 to Technical Specification Cooper Nuclear Station NRC Docket No. 50-298, DPR-46 As a result of the Nebraska Public Power District's recent reorganization (see Reference 1), the District respectfully submits the Proposed Technical Specifications (enclosure of Attachment I).
This is being done in order to bring our existing SORC and SRAB organizations into conformance with our new nuclear organization and the Standard Technical Specifications, and also to correct various typographical errors.
Section 6 of the Technical Specifications is included in this submittal in its entirety although some pages do not require revision.
The District has made an evaluation of the proposed Technical Specifications with respect to 10CFR50.92 and this is shown as Attachment I.
Per 10CFR50.91(b) the appropriate State of Nebraska Official is being notified by copy of this letter and enclosure.
\\
!Pd'!B8SS'd8$R F,
k e
Qsc.n ) w W ll li#* l
r' Page 2 October 26, 1983 LGA8300238 This char.ge has been reviewed by the necessary Safety Review Committees and payment for a Class II amendment in the amount of $1,200 is submitted.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me.
In ~ addition to three signed - originals, 40 copies are also submitted for your use.
Sincerely, a
e t
i Larry G. K cl Assistant General Manager - Nuclear LGK/gme:rs25/7 Attachment ec:
II. E. Simmons Department of Ilealth j
f I
i
~
i l
4 4
4
l l
l Page 3 October 26, 1983 LGA8300238 l
STATE OF NEBRASKA)
)ss PLATTE COUNTY
)
L. G. Ktinel, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is an authorized representative of the Nebraska Public Power District, a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of Nebraska; that he is duly authorized to submit this request on behalf of Nebraska Public Power District; and that the statements contained herein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
')
b>~c L. G. Kuncl Stibs n
presence and sworn to before me this y
ed, f
7."$HOMAS.
fnt "Y "'"" O'
- NOTARY PUBLIC
m Attachment I EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO 10CFR50.92 The enclosed Technical Specification change is judged to involve no significant hazards based upon the followiag:
1.
Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Evaluation Because this request is a purely administrative change to the Technical Specifications it does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2.
Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Evaluation Because this is an administrative change it does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3.
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Evaluation Because this request is an administrative change only, it will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
In the April 6, 1983, Federal Register (48:14870), the NRC published a list of examples of amendments that are not likely to involve a significant hazards concern.
Example No. 1 of that list states:
"A purely administrative change to Technical Specifications.
For example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the Technical Specifications, correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature."
The justification for the SORC and SRAB reorganization is based upon the reorganization of the District's Nuclear Power Group and represents a change in nomenclature; therefore, this request is judged to fall within the scope of the above example.
4
-