|
---|
Category:SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT--LICENSING & RELATED ISSUES
MONTHYEARML20217B5401999-10-0606 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 193 to License DPR-40 ML20211J9321999-09-0202 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Licensee Proposed Alternatives Provide Acceptable Level of Quality & Safety. Proposed Alternatives Authorized for Remainder of Third ten- Yr ISI Interval for Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 1 ML20210G2181999-07-27027 July 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 192 to License DPR-40 ML20210D9951999-07-22022 July 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 191 to License DPR-40 ML20206L4241999-05-10010 May 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Corrective Actions to Ensure That Valves Are Capable of Performing Intended Safety Functions & OPPD Adequately Addressed Requested Actions Discussed in GL 95-07 ML20206M2601999-05-0606 May 1999 SER Concluding That Licensee IPEEE Complete Re Info Requested by Suppl 4 to GL 88-20 & IPEEE Results Reasonable Given FCS Design,Operation & History ML20205Q5831999-04-15015 April 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 190 to License DPR-40 ML20198S3771998-12-31031 December 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 189 to License DPR-40 ML20198S4831998-12-31031 December 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 188 to License DPR-40 ML20154M4881998-10-19019 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 186 to License DPR-40 ML20154N2411998-10-19019 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 187 to License DPR-40 ML20236V4891998-07-30030 July 1998 Safety Evaluation Relating to Response to GL 87-02,suppl 1 for Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 1 ML20248C0671998-05-21021 May 1998 Safety Evaluation Granting Licensee Request for Exemption from Technical Requirements of 10CFR50,App R, Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to 790101 ML20217L7201998-03-23023 March 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 185 to License DPR-40 ML20203M4161998-02-0303 February 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 184 to License DPR-40 ML20203A4291998-01-26026 January 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 183 to License DPR-40 ML20199L0711997-11-24024 November 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 182 to License DPR-40 ML20198Q4031997-10-28028 October 1997 Safety Evaluation Re Control Room Habitability Requirements ML20137L6241997-03-27027 March 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 181 to License DPR-40 ML20134N7751997-02-13013 February 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 180 to License DPR-40 ML20134M6171997-02-13013 February 1997 Safety Evaluation Denying Licensee Request for Approval to Use ASME Section XI Code Case N-416-1 W/Proposed Exception & Code Case N-498-2 as Alternative to Required Hydrostatic Pressure Test ML20133P9161997-01-23023 January 1997 Safety Evaluation Accepting Revised Temperature Limits for DG-1 & DG-2 ML20133C2771996-12-30030 December 1996 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 179 to License DPR-40 ML20132F4911996-12-0909 December 1996 Safety Evaluation Related to Individual Plant Evaluation Omaha Power District,Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 1 ML20134M0871996-11-19019 November 1996 Safety Evaluation Supporting Request for Relief from Modifying Supports SIH-3,SIS-63,SIS-65 & RCH-13 at Fort Calhoun Station ML20129H3371996-10-25025 October 1996 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 178 to License DPR-40 ML20128F6441996-10-0202 October 1996 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 177 to License DPR-40 ML20129G3131996-09-27027 September 1996 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 176 to License DPR-40 ML20059J1831994-01-14014 January 1994 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 160 to License DPR-40 ML20059J2491994-01-14014 January 1994 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 159 to License DPR-40 ML20058G9371993-12-0303 December 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 158 to License DPR-40 ML20058F5951993-11-22022 November 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 157 to License DPR-40 ML20058C7491993-11-18018 November 1993 Safety Evaluation,Authorizing Alternative,On One Time Basis Only,W/Conditions That Licensee Perform Volumetric Exam of nozzle-to-vessel Welds During First Refueling Outage of Third 10-yr Insp Interval ML20059L7081993-11-10010 November 1993 Safety Evaluation Accepting Licensee Proposed Changes to Low Power Physics Testing Program ML20059G6601993-10-29029 October 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 156 to License DPR-40 ML20057E3471993-10-0101 October 1993 Safety Evaluation Advising That Based on Determination That Alternative Testing Consistent w/OM-10,paragraph 4.3.2.2. Requirements,No Relief Required ML20056E5411993-08-12012 August 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 155 to License DPR-40 ML20056E5371993-08-10010 August 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 154 to License DPR-40 ML20056D6801993-07-26026 July 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 153 to License DPR-40 ML20128B8241993-01-26026 January 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 149 to License DPR-40 ML20128D4511992-11-30030 November 1992 Safety Evaluation Accepting Evaluation of 120-day Response to Suppl 1 to GL 87-02, Verification of Seismic Adequacy of Mechanical & Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors, Unresolved Safety Issue A-46 ML20062G6621990-11-19019 November 1990 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 134 to License DPR-40 ML20216K0661990-11-14014 November 1990 Safety Evaluation Denying Util 900221 & 0622 Requests for Exemption from App R of 10CFR50 for Fire Area 34B,upper Electrical Penetration Room.Current Level of Fire Protection Does Not Meet Section III.G.2 Requirements ML20062B6161990-10-12012 October 1990 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 133 to License DPR-40 ML20055G0221990-07-0606 July 1990 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 132 to License DPR-40 ML20246A0741989-08-17017 August 1989 Safety Evaluation Re Inservice Testing Program for Pumps & Valves ML20245H9031989-08-15015 August 1989 Safety Evaluation Re Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.1 (Part 1), Equipment Classification (Reactor Trip Sys Components). Licensee Program Meets Requirements of Item 2.1 (Part 1) of Generic Ltr 83-28 & Acceptable ML20245K3481989-08-11011 August 1989 Safety Evaluation Accepting Electrical Isolation Devices for Interfacing Safety & Nonsafety Sys Re Implementation of ATWS Rule ML20247H6421989-07-24024 July 1989 Safety Evaluation Granting 890118 Request for Relief from Hydrostatic Testing Requirements of Section XI of ASME Code ML20248C0851989-06-0202 June 1989 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 122 to License DPR-40 1999-09-02
[Table view] Category:TEXT-SAFETY REPORT
MONTHYEARML20217B5401999-10-0606 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 193 to License DPR-40 ML20217A9931999-09-30030 September 1999 NRC Regulatory Assessment & Oversight Pilot Program, Performance Indicator Data LIC-99-0096, Monthly Operating Rept for Sept 1999 for Fcs,Unit 1.With1999-09-30030 September 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for Sept 1999 for Fcs,Unit 1.With ML20211J9321999-09-0202 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Licensee Proposed Alternatives Provide Acceptable Level of Quality & Safety. Proposed Alternatives Authorized for Remainder of Third ten- Yr ISI Interval for Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 1 LIC-99-0084, Monthly Operating Rept for Aug 1999 for Fort Calhoun Station.With1999-08-31031 August 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for Aug 1999 for Fort Calhoun Station.With ML20216E6431999-08-26026 August 1999 Rev 19 to TDB-VI, COLR for FCS Unit 1 ML20210R1961999-07-31031 July 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for July 1999 for Fcs,Unit 1 ML20210G2181999-07-27027 July 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 192 to License DPR-40 ML20210D9951999-07-22022 July 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 191 to License DPR-40 ML20216E6361999-07-21021 July 1999 Rev 18 to TDB-VI, COLR for FCS Unit 1 ML20210R2081999-06-30030 June 1999 Revised Monthly Operating Rept for June 1999 for Fcs,Unit 1 LIC-99-0065, Monthly Operating Rept for June 1999 for Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 1.With1999-06-30030 June 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for June 1999 for Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 1.With ML20196H8621999-06-30030 June 1999 NRC Regulatory Assessment & Oversight Pilot Program, Performance Indicator Data, June 1999 Rept ML20210P5461999-06-0808 June 1999 Rev 0,Vols 1-5 of Fort Calhoun Station 1999 Emergency Preparedness Exercise Manual, to Be Conducted on 990810. Pages 2-20 & 2-40 in Vol 2 & Page 4-1 in Vol 4 of Incoming Submittal Not Included ML20195B4581999-05-31031 May 1999 Rev 3 to CE NPSD-683, Development of RCS Pressure & Temp Limits Rept for Removal of P-T Limits & LTOP Requirements from Ts ML20207H7401999-05-31031 May 1999 Performance Indicators Rept for May 1999 LIC-99-0053, Monthly Operating Rept for May 1999 for Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 11999-05-31031 May 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for May 1999 for Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 1 ML20195B4521999-05-17017 May 1999 Technical Data Book TDB-IX, RCS Pressure - Temp Limits Rept (Ptlr) ML20206L4241999-05-10010 May 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Corrective Actions to Ensure That Valves Are Capable of Performing Intended Safety Functions & OPPD Adequately Addressed Requested Actions Discussed in GL 95-07 ML20206M2601999-05-0606 May 1999 SER Concluding That Licensee IPEEE Complete Re Info Requested by Suppl 4 to GL 88-20 & IPEEE Results Reasonable Given FCS Design,Operation & History LIC-99-0047, Monthly Operating Rept for Apr 1999 for Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1.With1999-04-30030 April 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for Apr 1999 for Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1.With ML20195E8621999-04-30030 April 1999 Performance Indicators, for Apr 1999 ML20205Q5831999-04-15015 April 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 190 to License DPR-40 ML20210J4331999-03-31031 March 1999 Changes,Tests, & Experiments Carried Out Without Prior Commission Approval for Period 981101-990331.With USAR Changes Other than Those Resulting from 10CFR50.59 ML20206G2641999-03-31031 March 1999 Performance Indicators Rept for Mar 1999 LIC-99-0034, Monthly Operating Rept for Mar 1999 for Fcs,Unit 1.With1999-03-31031 March 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for Mar 1999 for Fcs,Unit 1.With ML20205J8181999-02-28028 February 1999 Performance Indicators, for Feb 1999 LIC-99-0025, Monthly Operating Rept for Feb 1999 for Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 1.With1999-02-28028 February 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for Feb 1999 for Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 1.With ML20207F3291999-01-31031 January 1999 FCS Performance Indicators for Jan 1999 ML20203B0991998-12-31031 December 1998 Performance Indicators for Dec 1998 LIC-99-0026, 1998 Omaha Public Power District Annual Rept. with1998-12-31031 December 1998 1998 Omaha Public Power District Annual Rept. with LIC-99-0003, Monthly Operating Rept for Dec 1998 for Fort Calhoun Station.With1998-12-31031 December 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for Dec 1998 for Fort Calhoun Station.With ML20198S3771998-12-31031 December 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 189 to License DPR-40 ML20198S4831998-12-31031 December 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 188 to License DPR-40 ML20196G2251998-12-18018 December 1998 Rev 2 to EA-FC-90-082, Potential Over-Pressurization of Containment Penetration Piping Following Main Steam Line Break in Containment ML20198M3141998-11-30030 November 1998 Performance Indicators Rept for Nov 1998 LIC-98-0172, Monthly Operating Rept for Nov 1998 for Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 1.With1998-11-30030 November 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for Nov 1998 for Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 1.With LIC-98-0160, Special Rept:On 981113,MSL RM RM-064 Was Declared Inoperable Due to Leakage Past Isolation Valve HCV-922.Troubleshooting Has Indicated That Leakage Has Stopped & Cause of Leak Continues to Be Investigated1998-11-25025 November 1998 Special Rept:On 981113,MSL RM RM-064 Was Declared Inoperable Due to Leakage Past Isolation Valve HCV-922.Troubleshooting Has Indicated That Leakage Has Stopped & Cause of Leak Continues to Be Investigated ML20203B0721998-11-16016 November 1998 Rev 6 to HI-92828, Licensing Rept for Spent Fuel Storage Capacity Expansion ML20196E4981998-10-31031 October 1998 Performance Indicators Rept for Oct 1998 ML20196G2441998-10-31031 October 1998 Changes,Tests & Experiments Carried Out Without Prior Commission Approval. with USAR Changes Other than Those Resulting from 10CFR50.59 LIC-98-0154, Monthly Operating Rept for Oct 1998 for Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 1.With1998-10-31031 October 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for Oct 1998 for Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 1.With ML20154M4881998-10-19019 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 186 to License DPR-40 ML20154N2411998-10-19019 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 187 to License DPR-40 LIC-98-0136, Monthly Operating Rept for Sept 1998 for Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 1.With1998-09-30030 September 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for Sept 1998 for Fort Calhoun Station,Unit 1.With ML20155G4261998-09-30030 September 1998 Performance Indicators for Sept 1998 ML20154A1251998-08-31031 August 1998 Performance Indicators, Rept for Aug 1998 LIC-98-0122, Monthly Operating Rept for Aug 1998 for Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1.With1998-08-31031 August 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for Aug 1998 for Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1.With ML20238F7231998-08-17017 August 1998 Owner'S Rept for Isis ML18066A2771998-08-13013 August 1998 Part 21 Rept Re Deficiency in CE Current Screening Methodology for Determining Limiting Fuel Assembly for Detailed PWR thermal-hydraulic Sa.Evaluations Were Performed for Affected Plants to Determine Effect of Deficiency 1999-09-30
[Table view] |
Text
.
- k 4* UNITED STATES p t, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
< j
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-40 OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-285
Background
The staff originally reviewed and accepted the Ft. Calhoun design as a four (4) channel (two-out-of-four logic) protection system. However, the Ft. Calhoun plant is presently operating with Technical Specifications (TSs) which allow the operation of a four (4) channel protection system with one of the four channels of a given process variable in bypass for an indefinite period of time. The system would then function for the given process variable as a two-out-of-three protection system rather than a two-out-of-four protection system. Upon further review, the staff has concluded that insufficient information is available on the effects of single failures within the Ft. Calhoun protection system to warrant the loss of conservatism incurred by operation for a lengthy period of time with one channel of a given parameter in bypass.
Subsequently, the NRC informed the licensee by letter dated March 31, 1982 that one of two methods would be acceptable to the staff regarding the bypassing and tripping of inoperable channels associated with plant protection systems.
One method (Option 1) requires the incorporation of TSs which will not allow an RPS/ESFAS inoperable channel to be bypassed for greater than 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> unless active maintenance is being performed after the 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> limit. Option 2 allows an inoperable channel to be bypassed for a lengthy period of time (beyond 48 8505230683 850509 PDR ADOCK 05000285 P PDR
hours regardless of whether active maintenance is being performed or not; typically until the first cold shutdown after channel failure)'if it can be .
verified .that the remaining protection system channels in a two-out-of-three logic are sufficient to satisfy all requfred protection system criteria.
The licensee elected to pursue Option 1 and submitted support information by letters dated June 15 and October 27, 1982. Upon review of the licensee's letters, the staff found unsupported evceptions related to Option 1. The exceptiens will allow the licensee to bypass various protection channels for
. extended periods (beyond 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />) regardless of whether active maintenance is being performed or not and to use jumpers or blocks to place ESFAS channels in the bypassed or tripped condition. The licensee, upon notification of the staff's concerns and proposed TSs by letter dated May 23, 1983, responded by letter dated April 6,1984. The staff's evaluation of this information follows.
EVALUATION The TSs submitted in the licensee's April 6,1984 letter are consistent with those delineated by the staff (May 23, 1983 letter) with exceptions as noted above. The detailed description and evaluation of each exception follows.
Exception fio. 1 - The licensee proposes to bypass for up to seven (7) days an inoperable channel associated with high power level, thermal-margin / lou l
pressurizer pressure, or axial power distribution if the failure results fron-malfunctioning resistance temperature detectors (RTDs) or nuclear detectors.
-If the inoperable channel is not returned to operable status within seven
/
days, the plant will be placed in a hot shutdown condition within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> so that the defective channel can be repaired.
e -
The licensee has requested this additional channel bypass time because the nomally inaccessible RTDs and nuclear detectors require a reasonable amount
-of time to repair (including scheduling and planning) and because of a concern regarding the increased probability for spurious plant trips by placing the system in a one-out-of-three trip logic. The licensee fias verified that tfie failure of tiiese components occurs infrequently and that the RPS and ESFAS
.are designed with sufficient redundancy and separation to ensure performance of their intended function with one inoperable channel in bypass for seven
-days.
Exception No. 2 - The steam generator low pressure and steam generator differ-ential pressure channels of the auxiliary feedwater (AFW) automatic initiation circuitry are used to detect and prevent delivery of AFW to a " faulted" steam generator. The licensee proposes to place one inoperable channel of the
' four. steam generator pressure and/or steam generator differential pressure signals on one of the steam generators in the bypassed condition for a pro-longed period of time (beyond the 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> limit until the next cold shutdown).
If another failure then occurs in one of the four channels on the other steam
. generator (i.e., the one without a previously bypassed channel), one of the two' inoperable channels must be fixed within seven days or the unit will be placed in.. hot shutdown for repair. It should be noted that the prolonged bypass will be allowed only after the Plant Review Comittee has. reviewed and documented their judgment concerning operation with a defective channel in bypass..
1
n s
The licensee has performed an analysis of the prolonged bypass of a $1rigle steam generator low pressure and/or steam generator differential pNssure channel as it relates to the design' basis events that rely on AFP initiation.
The results of the licensee's analysis cunfirm that sufficient fedundancy and separation exists such that no degradation of safety margin occurs with a channel in prolonged bypass. Moreover, with any one of the subject channels in the actuation permissive state, a single failure within the AFW actuation circuitry will not preclude the feeding of the incapacitated steam generator.
Exception No. 3 - The licensee proposes that the TSs allow eight hours (instead of one hour) to place certain inoperable ESFAS channels in the bypass or trip condition since the-present Ft. Calhoun Station (FCS) design requires that jumpers or blocks be used for those ESFAS channels which do not have built-in bypass capabilities. The staff informed the licensee that such modifications are not normally allowed based on IEEE 279 requirements. Subsequently, upon our request, the licensee provided information to justify the FCS design.
The ESFAS consists of four sensing channels and normally operates as a two-out-of-four logic for system actuation. The use of jumpers or blocks for inoperable ESFAS channel bypass or trip is part of the original FCS design which has been reviewed and approved by the staff. The new TSs require that should a channel become inoperable, that channel must be placed in the bypassed or tripped condition within eight hours. If placed in bypass, the affected system would then be allowed to operate as a two-out-of-three system for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />. The time limit for this configuration applies to all of the ESFAS except for the AFW systen (See Exception f;a. 2 above). If not returned to operable status vrithin the 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> tirre limit and active maintenance is not
i,~
_s.
being performed on the subject channel, the operator would then be required to' place the inoperable channel in the tripped condition which would put the ESFAS in a one-out-of-three logic. ,The licensee has verified that there is sufficient redundancy and separation to allow such bypass conditions. Also, it shculd be noted that the TSs allow only one inoperable channel of a given parameter to be bypassed at any given time.
FCS operating experience has shown that the use of jumpers or blocks to bypass or trip the various inoperable ESFAS channels is infrequent (typically 2 to 3 times a year). The licensee has verified that strict administrative pro-cedures are in use at the FCS to control such circuit modifications. For example, the status of a jumpered or blocked channel is indicated in the con-trol room by placing a " Hold for Inspection" sticker on the associated indi-cator(s). When the inoperable channel has been repaired and the jumper or block removed, testing is performed on that channel to ensure operability.
Also, the licensee has verified that jumpers and blocks are not and will not be used for routine surveillance testing of the systems governed by the proposed TSs.
CONCLUSION It should be reiterated that the TSs currently in use at the FCS allow plant operation with one inoperable channel of a given process variable in bypass for an indefinite period. Overall, the newly proposed TSs (licensee's April 6, 1984 letter) which were developed in accordance with Option 1 impose a 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> time limitation for the bypass of an inoperable protection channel.
Ootien 1 also allows bypass beyond the 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> limit only if active tainter.ance
_____.___.__----_____._____a
. is'being performed on that channel. Although th'e proposed method to bypass an inoperable channel is not the praferred alternative as related to current regulatory requirements on this subject, the staff considers the implementation of Option 1 to be a considerable improvement over the existing TSs since it limits the use of protection channel bypasses. Option 1 also aids in the prevention of inadvertent protection system actuation and provides sufficient flexibility for the performance of maintenance on the inoperable channel.
- As discussed above, however, the licensee has taken some exceptions to Option 1. The staff has concluded, based on the above evaluation, that the licensee has provided sufficient information to confirm that the exceptions do not cause a degradation in plant safety. Thus, the staff finds the TSs proposed by the licensee in their April 6,1984 letter which are unique to the FCS to be satisfactory for implementation.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change'~ in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts .and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and.there has been no public
. coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR !51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 651.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance'of the amendment.
~
.. CONCLUSION cc We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there.
.is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not bo endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities'will
.be conducted .in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuar.co
,cf.the amendment will not be inimical to the ccmmon defense and. security or to.
the health and safety of the public.
Date: .May 9, 1985 Principal Contributor:
R.~'Stevens O
l is