ML20148P957

Forwards Document Re Review of Facilities,For Info.Fr Biweekly Notice Dtd 880113,including Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amends to Licenses DPR-57 & NPF-5,on Pages 827 & 831 Encl

ML20148P957
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	01/25/1988
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	James O'Reilly GEORGIA POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8801290274
Download: ML20148P957 (19)

Text

[ . t >

l January 25, 1988 DISTRIBUTION: w/o enclosurs

j. g -DocketpFile-f NRD PDR Local PDR l

RRC System

[

PDi23 Reading

> MRood KJabbour ACRS (10)

. OGC-Bethesda

) DOCKETN0(S). 50-321 Mr. James P. O'Reilly E. Jordan i 50-366 Senior Vice President- J. Stone Nuclear Operations Georgia Power Company P.O. Bos 4548 Atlanta, Georgia 30302

SUBJECT:

E. I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 The following documents cor.cerning our review of the subject facility are transmitted for your infonnation.

C Notice of Receipt of Application, dated .

O Draf t/ Final Environmental Statement, dated .

Notice of Availability of Draft / Final Environmental Statement, dated .

Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No. dated , .

O Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, dated .

O Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License or Amendment to Facility Operating License, dated .

Bi-Weekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, dated 1/13/88 [see page(s)] 827 and 831 .

O Exemption, dated .

O Construction Permit No. CPPR- , Amendment No. dated .

Facility Operating License No. , Amendment No. da ted .

Order Extending Construction Completion Date, dated .

flonthly Operating Report for transmitted by letter dated .

O Annual / Semi-Annual Report-transmitted by letter dated _, .

8801290274 880125 PDR ADOCK 05000321 P PDR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosures :

As stated cc: See nest page orrice> PDt23 DPR-sus:,ame)

. I/II['.' . .$. . . .

j..f.'I. . .... o. c. .h. . .......

. o. . . .k. . . .....................

. . . .1/&/.d . ..................... .....................

l w : c=r no eemecu o":>w ono m. .fM h.f. .RECORD COPY OFFICIAL

+

Federal Register / Vol. 53, No, a / Wednesday, January 13, 1988 / Notices 817 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IWweekly Nouce Appik.atione end Amendments to Operating Ucenses involving No $60nificent Hazards Consideratione g 1. Background

,, Pursuant to Public Law (P.L) 97 415.

• the Nudeer Regulatory Commission (the

, Commission)is publishing this regular biweekly notice. P.L 97-415 revhed section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), to require the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, under a new provision of section 189 of the Act.This provision grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Cor.1 mission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. netwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from December 21,1987 through December 31,1987. The last biweekly notice was published on December 30,1987 (52 FR 49217).

NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT IIAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR IIEARING The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant harards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in to CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the ,

facilitv in accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1) involve a l significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from

' any accident previously evaluated, or (3) l involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.The basis for this 4 proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

. 'the Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in maktng any final determination. The Cornmission will not

H18 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 1988 / Notices norma!I.s make a final deteimination leave to intervene or who has been for opportunity for a hearing after unless it receives a request for a admitted as a party may amend the issuance. The Commission espects that hearing petition without requesting leave of the the need to take this action mil occur Written comments may be submitted Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the very infrequently.

by mail to the Rules and Procedures first prehearing conference scheduled m A request for a hearing or a petition Branch. Division of Rules and Records, the proceeding. but such an amended for leave to inten ene must be filed with Office of Administration and Resource petition must satisfy the specificity the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory requirements desenbed above. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. s Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Not later than fifteen (15) da) prior to Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

and should cite the publication date and the first prehearing conference Docketmg and Service Branch, or may ,,

page number of this Federal Register scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner be delivered to the Commission's Public notice. Written comments may also be shall file a supplement to the petition to Document Room.1717 H Street, NW., '

delivered to Room 4000. Maryland intervene which must include a list of Washington, DC, by the abose date.

National Bank Building,7735 Old the contentions which are sought to be Where petitions are filed during the last Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland litigated in the matter, and the bases for ten (10) days of the notice period, it is from 8.15 a.m. to 5:00 p m. Copies of each contention set forth with requested that the petitioner promptly so written comments received may be reasonable specificity. Contentions shall inform the Commission by a toll. free examined at the NRC Public Document be limited to matters within the scope of telephone call to Western Union at (800)

Hoom.1717 H Street, NW., Washington, the amendment under consideration. A 325-0000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700).

DC. The filing of requests for hearing petitioner who fails to file such a The Western Union operator should be and petitions for leave to intervene is supplement which satisfies these given Datagram Identification Number discussed below. requirements with respect to at least one 3737 and the following message By February 12,1988 the licensee may contention will not be permitted to addressed to (Project Director):

file a request for a hearing with respect participate as a party. , petitioner's name and telephone to issuance of the amendment to the nose permitted to ntervene become number; date petition was mailed. plant subject facility operating license and parties to the proceedmg subject to any name; and publication date and page any person whose interest may be limitations in the order granting leave to number of this Federal Register notice, affected by this proceeding and who intervene, and have the opportunity to A copy of the petition should also be wishes to participate as a party in the participate fully in the conduct of the sent to the Office of the General proceedmg must fde a written petition hearing, includmg the opportunity to Counsel Bethesda. U.S. Nuclear for leave to intervene. Requests for a present evidence and cross-examine Regulatory Commission Washington, hearing and petitions for leave to witnesses. DC 20555. and to the attorney for the inten ene shall be filed in accordance if a hearing is requested, the licensee.

with the Commission's "Rules of Commission will make a final Nontimely filings of petitions for leave Practice for Domestic Ucensing determination on the issue of no to intervene, amended petitions.

Proceedings"in 10 CFR Part 2. If a ' significant hazards consideration. De supplemental petitions and/or requests request for a heanns or petition for fmal determination will serve to decide for hearing will not be entertained leave to intervene is filed by the above when the hearing is h?ld. absent a determination by the date, the Commission or an Atomic If the final determination is that the Commission, the presiding officer or the Safety and ucensing Board, designated amendment request involves no presiding Atomic Safety and ucensing by the Commission or by the Chairman significant hazards consideration, the Board, that the petition and/or request of the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Commission may issue the amendment should be granted based upon a Board Panel, will rule on the request and make it immediately effective, balancing of factors specified in 10 CFR and/or petition and the Secretary or the notwithstanding the request for a 2.714(a)(1)(1).(v) and 2.714(d).

designated Atomic Safety and ucensing hearing. Any beanns held would take For further details with respect to this Board willissue a notice of hearing or place afterissuance of the amendment. action, see the application for an appropriate order. If the final determination is that the amendment which is available for public As required by 10 CFR 2.714. a amendment involves a significant inspection at the Commission's Public petition for leave to intervene shall set hazards consideration, any hearing held Document Room.1717 H Street, NW.,

forth with particularity the interest of would take place before the issuance of Washington, DC, and at the local public the petitioner in the proceeding, and any amendment. document room for the pa rticular facility how that interest may be affected by the Normally, the Commission will not involved.

results of the proceedmg.ne petition issue the amendment until the should specifically explain the reasons expiration of the 30-day notice period. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company' '

why intervention should be permitted Docket Nos,50-317 and 50-318, Calvert However, should circumstances change with particular reference to the during the notice period such that failure Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 following factors:(1) the nature of the to act in a timely way would result, for and 2, Calvert County, Maryland A petitioner's right under the Act to be example,1n derating or shutdown of the Date of amendment requeste january made a party to the proceeding:(2) the facility, the Commission may issue the 20.1987 nature and extent of the petitioner's license amendment before the Description of amendment request property, financial or other interest in expiration of the so day notice period, ne following proposed Technical the proceeding: and (3) the possible provided that its final determination in Specification (TSI changen are in effect of any order which may be that the amendment involves no response to the DGE application dated entered in the proceedmg on the algnificant hazards consideration. ne January 20,1987 The proposed TS petitioner's interest. ne petition should final determination will consider all changes:

also identify the specific aspect (s) of the public and State t.omments received (1) Modify the Unit 1 T3 umiting subject matter of the proceeding as to before action is taken. Should the Condition For Operation (LCO) 3.3.3.2 which petitioner wishes to inten ene. Commission take this action,it will for incore detectors by placing Any person who has filed a petition for publish a notice of issuance and pro.:de additional restrictions upon operability

Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 8 / Wednesday. january 13. 1988 / Notices 819 above those that were required for two a:Imuthal power tilt valves at three is performed at a reactor coolant system operation during the previous cycle of the four axial elevations. average temperature greater than or (Cycle 8). (2) LCO 3.3.3.2.b would require that at equal to 515' F and with all four reactor (2) Change the suneillance periods of least 75% of allincere detector segments coolant pumps operating These the Unit 1 and 2 TS Surveillance be operable for recalibration of the conditions are representatise of reactor Requirements (SRs) 4.1.3.4 e excore neutron flux detection s> stem conditions for reactor trips from (demonstration of fulllength control rather than the 50. required during operating conditions.The purpose of the element assembly (CEA) drop time) and Cycle 8. CEA drop time testing is to ensure that

. 4 3 3 2 b (incore detector channel (3) LCO 3.3.3.2.c would require, for scram insertion times are consistent calibration) from at least once per 18 monitoring the unrodded planar radial with those used in the safety analy ses months to at least once per refueling peaking factor, the unrodded integrated Factors which could adversely affect the interval, where a refueling interval shall radial peaking factor. or the linear heat CEA drop times when the suneillance be defined as 24 months. rate, that at least 75% of allincore (3) Modify the Units 1 and 2 TS SR inten alis increased are l1) changes in detector locations be operable rather component clearances. (2) changes in 4.7.11.1.1.f.3. for cycling fire suppression than the 60% required during Cycle 8. the physical configuration of the CEA or w ster s> stem flow path 5 alves that are On March 8.1986. the NRC published not testable during plant operation, and guide tubes, and l3) the buildup of guidance in the Federal Restatar (51 FR 4.7.11.4.b. for the inspection. teracking corrosion products and suspended 7751) conceming examples of materialin the coolant system tha' and replacement of degraded coupling amendments that are not likely to gaskets for fire hoses inside invoh e a significant hazards could interfere with CEA motion.

containment by extending their Changes to component clearances and consideration.

changes in the physical configuration of associated surveillance intervals from at One of the examples. (11) was "a least once every 18 months to at least change that constitutes an additional the CEA or guide tubes are more likely once per refueling interval (24 months). limitation, restriction, or control not to occur when the reactor vessel head is and presently included in the Technical removed and when maintenance is performed on tne CEAs (including (4) Renumber the Units 1 and 2 TS SR Specifications." This proposal is one 4 7.11.11 f.3 as 4 7.11.1.1 g 2 and TS SR such change as the proposed TS LCO replacement) and that portion of the 4.7.11.11 g as 4.7.1111 g 1 and change modifications make the operability drive system directly interfacing with a the Units 1 and 2 TS SRs 41.1111 g (fire requirements for incore detectors more fuel assembly. For these two factors, suppression system flow test). 4 7.11.2.b restrictive than those currently specified Surveillance Requirements 413 4 a and and c (spray ano sprinkler sy stem for Cycle 8. 41.3 4.b are applicable and not affected functional tests). and 43.11.4 e Based upon the above. the NRC staff by th dh h (containment fire hose stations agrees with the licensee's evaluation intena ofSurve llance equr ent I operabilit and hydrostatic tests) by and proposes to determine that the n31c. Butldup of corrosion products making a ministrative changes and proposed changes to TS LCO 3.3.3.2 and suspended materialin the coolant rnore restrictive changes to the sun eillance requirements.

Basts forproposedno signip. cont involve no significant hazards considerations, }lI]"" ,,,q

'd nt r Change tao. 2 proposes to change the controls on the reactor coolant s)^ stem

• berords consideration determination surveillance periods from 18 to 24 In addition, each CEA is exercised at Change No.1 proposes to modify the months for the Units 1 and 2 TS least once per 31 days in accordance Unit 1 TS LCO 3.3 3.2 for incore detector surveillance re uirements for with Suneillance Requirement 41312.

operability by making its provisions demonstrating fulllength CEA drop time This testing should detect sticking CEAs more restrictive than those required for (TS 413 4 c) and for performing incere and mitigate the proposed 6. month Unit 1 Cycle 8 operation. During startup detector channel calibration (TS utension in the suneillance intenal of 4 3 3 2.b). TS 413 4 e for demonstrating CEA drop for Unitofincere number 1 Cycle 8. anstrings detector unexpected!

faile lar$e The current surveillance period for time. Furthermore each planned or thereby placing the Unit close to its these tests is to months which unplanned reactor trip that may occur operability limits. To ovide increased corresponds to the current refuelirg during the extended 24. month operating .

operational flexibilit for Unit 1 during cycle. The extension in the surveillance cycle would pcovide additional Cycle 8 operations, t e requirements of interval to 24 months is requested to information on CEA drop times and TS LCO 3.3.3 2 were relaxed for one facilitate a 24. month operating cycle. operability, thus, indicatmg any cycle only. In order to restore LCO The licensee evaluated the proposed problems developing with regards to 3 3.3 2 to its pre-cycle 8 requirements, change against the standards in 10 CFR CEA drop time.

the followieg modifications age 5002 and has determined that the To determine the time dependency of

, proposed: amendment would not: CEA drop time with respect to the length (1) LCO 3.3.3.2.a would require at (1) Involve a significant increase in the of the operating cycle. CEA drop time least eight operable symmetric incore probability or consequences of an measurements from 15 hot functional

, detector segment groups, with at least accident previously evaluated... test data / sets were analyzed. Eight sets two of these detector segment groups at The licensee has proposed a six- of measurements were taken from Unit 1 each of the four axial elevations month extension in the surveillance and seven from Unit 2. The average CEA containing incere detectors, to have period of TS 41.3 4.c for performing CEA drop time for standard fuel assemblies sufficient operable detector segments to drop time test. Control element was approximately 2.3 seconds. The compute at least two azimuthal power assembly drop time la required to be maxirnum standard deviation for drop tilt valves at each of these four axial less than or equal to 3,1 seconds. The times in any fuel cycle was 0 094 elesations Dunng Cycle 8. eight CEA drop time is measured from the seconds.The 15 sets of test data symmetric incere detector segment time that electrical power is interrupted included data from both 12. month and groups of no specified elevation were to a fully withdrawn CEA to the time 18. month fuel cycles. Thus, this data required with sufficient operable required for the CEA to be at its 90% indicates that no increase in drop time detector segments to compute at least insertion position. This drop time testing trend was observed due to either

( .

320 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 8 / Wednesday lanuary 13, 1988 / Notices '

lengthening the operating cycles or to incore detector system was to be Requirements 4.1.3.4.c and 4.3.3.2.b increased periods between survedlanw inoperable, other methods are employed involve no significant harards testing from 12 to 18 months. to carry out its monitormg and considerations.

De hcensee's analysis of pretious cahbrahon functions. Change No. 3 proposes to modify the fuel cycle CEA drop t me measc.'ements. The licensee's analysis of previous Units 1 and 2 E SRs 4 7.11.1.1.f.3. for I which showed no ad6erse affects when fuel cycle incore detection system cycling fire suppression water system shifung from a 12-month to an 18-month cabbrabon data, which showed no now path valves that are not testable

)

cycle, as well as the other surveillance adverse trends when shifting from a 12- during plant operation, and 41.114 b. for '

requirements that are performed to month to an 18. month cycle, as well as the inspection. re racking and determine CEA drop time, indicate that the power distribution surveillance the CEA dmp time should not be replacement of degraded couphng requirements that are impused at least gaskets for fire hoses inside appreciably affected by the propcsed 6- once every 31 days of mude 1 operation.

containment, by extending their i month extension of the sur eillance indicate that the operabihty of the '

period of the % 4.1.3 4.c to 24 months. associated surveillance intervals from at incore detectors should not be least once every 18 months to at least

}lence, the probability or consequences appreciably affected by the proposed 6- once per refuehng interval (24 months).

of previously evaluated accidents would month extension to 24 months of the not be significantly increased. %e interval for these surveillances is surveillance tnterval of TS 4.3.32 b for 18 months which corresponds to the Also, the licensee has proposed a 6 performing incore detector channel month extension in the surveillance current refueling cycle. De extension of cabbrations. IIence, the probability or I interval of E 4.3.3 2.b for performing consequences of previously evaluated the surveillance interval to 24 months is incore detector channel calibrations. requested to facihtate a 24 month accidents would not be significantlY operating cycle.

De incore detector channel cabbration increased. '

excludes the neutron detectors but (iil Create the possibility of a new or ne licensee evaluated the proposed includes all electronic components. ne change again.st the standards in 10 C1'R different type of accident from any channel calibration consists of Iwo accident previously evaluated... ' 50S2 and has determined that the parts:(1) a resistance check of the cable The proposed changes only extend the amendment would not:

from the computer termination to the surveillance intervals for CEA drop time (1) Involve a significant increase in the reactor core, and (2) a check of the testing and incore detector calibrat ons. probbihty or consequences of an '

abihty of the computer to read a known This proposal does not change any accident previously evaluated..

voltage level.The resistance check system design or facihty operation: The proposal to modify TS verifies cable integrity. A review of therefore. it does not create the Surs elllance Requirement 4 7.11.1.1.f.3 resistance checks performed since the of a new or different kind of affects on!) two fire suEPression water initial startups of Calvert Chffs Units 1 possibihtfrom accident any previously evaluated.system valves inside containment. LCO and 2 has been conducted No evidence (iii) Involve a sigmficant reduction in 3111.1.c at aH Nmes requires an of cable degradation was found. a margin of safety... perable fire suppression water system flowever, all of the in. containment The margins of safety that could be Il W path that takes a suction from the cable is being replaced with potentially affected by these changes water storage tanks and transfers the environmentally quahfied cable. The included the margm from reactor water through the distribuuon system up design specificahon for the new cable coolant system overpressunration and to the first vahe before the water flow will ensure that it is at least as rehable the margins from peak centerline alarm desice on each sprinkler, hose as the cable it replaces The second part temperature (PCT) and from the standpipe or spray system nser. All of the channel cahbration checks the depature from nucleate boilmg (DNB), valves in this flow path can be tested computer's abihty to read a known due to a possible decrease in the dunna unit operabon with the exception voltage level. Dree known signals are negative reachvity insertion rate on a of the two Valves inside containment input into the computer:(1) a short reactor trip and from inaccurate flux (the motor operated containment l circuit. (2) a 150 millivolt signal, and (3) monitionna due to degradation in the isolation valve and a manus) block a 250 milhvolt signal. Proper computer incore detectors. valve). *f3 Surveillance Requirement readings are verified for each test with flowever, a renew of plant 4111.11f.3 requires these two valvcs to the soltages being between 12 survedlance history shows that:(1) both be tested by cychng and verifying flow.

milhsolts. Other checks to verify proper of these systems (CEAs and incere The hcensee's results from a review of computer operation are also performed detectors) have been extremely reliable, plant history indicate that there has and include CRT and alarm printer and (2) the surveillance results of both never been a failure of either valve to s erification. systems have routinely yielded excellent perform adequately.The licensee further Test data from the initial units' results that were independent of the states that there is no evidence that a 6- .

startups to the present has been time between survedlances (cycle rnonth extension in this surveillance reuewed to determine if performance length). In addition, in both cases there interval between valve cycles would changed in an adverse manner over time exists othrt TS survedlance adversely impact valve operation. .

and with the shift from a 12. month to an requirements that monitor CEA and llence, the probabibty or consequence

• 18 month operatina cycle. The bcensee incore detector performance and would of previously evaluated accidents would noted no adverse trends and found that most hkely mdicate any ongoing not be significantly increased by the all tests had been consistently degradation tn either systern. thus proposed 64nonth extension of the satisfactory. mitigating any potenbal hazards survettlance interval of TS 4.7.11.1.1.f.3.

In addition. performanu of the power presented by extending the The proposed modshcetion of TS distnbution TS Sursediance surveillances intarvals. Therefore, this Surveillance Requirement 4111.4.b Requirernents 4.2.2.1.2 and 4.2.3 2, which change does not involve any s:gmf cant would affect only the inspection and are at least once per 31 mode 1 dd)s. reduction in a margm of safety, terackmg of fire hoses inside proudes further assurana of the Based upon the above, the NRC staff operabahty of the incore detection containment. A review of previously proposes to determine that the proposed conducted containment hre hose

) stem.The hcensee states that if the changea to TS Surseillance inspections revealed no failures of the

F der:1 Register / Vol. 53, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 1988 / Notices 821 fire hoses The licensee states that these 4 7.11.1.1 g 2 and TS SR 4.7.11.1.1 g a s Attorney for licensee:Ja) E. Silberg results were expected as it has been a 4 7.11.1.1 g 1 and to modify the Units 1 Esq., Shaw. Pittman Potts and laensee policy to rep l ace all fire hoses and 2 TS SRs 4 7.11.1.1 g. 4 7.11.2.b & c Trowbridge. 2300 N Street. NW..

Inside containment on a three year and 4.7.11.4 e by making administrative Washington. DC 20037 frequency. The licensee intends, for the or more restrictive changes to the NRC Project Director; Robert A.

24. month operating cycle to current sun elllance requirements. The Ca pra. Director h)drostatically test or replace all proposed restrictive changes to the Commonwealth Edison Company, ears euneillance requirements are as containment Furthermore, fire hoseshase test results every s.. two gown.

follows; Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50 265, Quad

11) the aun eillance interval for performins Cities Nuclear Power Station. Units 1 that has not thedegraded hose coupling signi cantlybasket material over the a fire supprusion water s>siem f ow tut in and 2, Rock Island County. Illinois three year interval between hose accordance with TS 4 7.11.1 s would be Date of cpp//cetion for cmendme: t replacements. Finally, during hose chan8'd to "at least once per refuelin8 November 6.1987 as supplemented b) inspection. there has never been inten alm 4 monthal from the cetly December 16.1987 evidence of hose mildew, rot or s!milar mq*ed "at least once per 3 years,"

Description of omendment request-damage due to chemicals, abrasion, d 'P '

moisture or normal wear. Thus,it is

,, $,','Q*"p ,1h N'ld be h"8 e The proposed amendment would resisc conducted at lust esery 12 rnonths. Tables 3 21 and 4.21 of the Quad Cines.

unlikely that the containment fire hoses Currently. only totable uhes are regatred Units 1 and 2. Technical Specifications would experience any significant to be cycled at least es ery 12 months by TS (TS) for High Pressure Core Injection degredation over the proposed 6-month 4 7.112 b whereas TS 4 7.112 c.1.b requres (HpCIl and Reactor Core Isolation surveillance interval extension. Hence, the c>cl ng of those not testable during plant Cooling (RCIC) Systems Steam Line the probability or consequences of the operation at least every 16 rnonths. All of High Flow Indication Instrumentation proposed change to TS 4.7.11.4 b would these vahu. howev er. are testable dunng More specifically, a TS amendment was not s:gnificantly increase the probability plant operation. making TS 4 7,11.2 c.1.b requested that would. (1) revise the or consequences of any previously superfluous Consequent!). the licensee has propened delenen of TS 4 7.11.2 c.1 b and of number of operable or inpped HPCI and evahnted accidents. RCIC steam line high flow indication lii) Create the possibility of a new or the word ' testable from the phrase by d;fferent type of accident from an), cyclina each tutable valve"in TS 4 7.11.2 b. Instrument channels from a minimum of accident prestously evaluated.. (3) fire hose station veh*

e eperabihty and four (4) channels to two (2) channels:

These proposed changes do not create hose h>drostatic tesis currently are required this will correct a discrepancy that has by TS 4 7.114 c to be performed at least once existed since the original TS w ere the possibihty of any new or different per 3 yurs The bcensee has proposed that accidents as no plant modifications or issued by making the number of thne tuts on fire hose stations inside channels consistent with the original changes in s) stem operation or containment be required to be performed at surveillance testing. other than test de:Ign bas!: and actual plant least once dunng refuehng intenal t:4 confiFuration. *nd (2) revise the HPCi

( li) ol ificant reduction in n tarch 6.1986. the NPC published 8' a margin of safet)... guidance in the Federal Register (51 FR

$t g 3( 0 co d o ofe Extending the surveillance inte val for 7751) concerning examples of conservatise settin8 of 3 ( t ( 9 these two tests does not invol . seconds: this change was recommended significant reduction in any ma g n ef

' n t lik'l I by the Commonwealth Edison Company ln7e a sigmfscant hazard safety. Efforts were made to extend the (CECO. the licensee) Engineering

" de

• Department based upon General Electric sur eillance interval of only those tests that could not be performed during unit Two of the examples were ,'(i) A (GE) Company analysis.

operation (1 e., testing and inspecting fire purely administrative change to Additionally, the TS amendment hoses and fire suppression water system techrJcal specifications: for example, a would correct a typographical error in change to achieve tailstency the associated surveillance requirement 5 alves inside containment). These containment fire protection components throughout the technical specifications. bases current TS for Units 1 and 2  ;

are generally inaccessible dunng unit * "CI3 " OI " identify the high steam Dow instruments '

nomenclatureand n ear, r a change (ii) A change that in operatien, and so, will be tested during as 12389 A thru D and 2 2389 A thru D.

refuehng outages. However, the constitutes an additionallimitation, while the correct designations are 1 likehhood of a fire in6tde containment restriction, or control not presently 2352.12353. 2 2352 and 2 2353.The low during unit operation is much smaller included in the technical specifications, pressure instruments are listed as 1-than dunna outage work periods. Thus. '8 a mon stringent surveillance 2352.12353,2 2352 and 2 2353 in the the likelihood of a fire occurring inside req'uirement." These proposals are such Units 1 and 2 TS. while the correct containment that would damage safety administrative and more restrictive designations are 12389 A thru D and 2- l and safety related systems will not be changes as they simplify the TS to better 2389 A thru D Instrument numbers for  ;

significantly increased by this proposed renect plant conditions and also, require the high steart now instrumentation  !

6-month test interval extension. surveillances to be performed more were actually tnc designations for the Therefore, the margins of safety frequently, low pressure instrumentation while the provided by these safety and safety. Based upon the above, the NRC staff instrument numbers for the low pressure related s) stems will not be significantly agrees with the licensee's evaluation instrumentation, are actually the reduced. and proposes to determine that the designations for the HPCI high steam Based upon the above. the NRC staff proposed changes to TS 4.7.n.1.1.f.3. Cow instruments Revising these

~

proposes to deteru.ine that the proposed 4 7.11.1.1 g. 4.7.11.2.b. & e and 4.7.11.4 e instrument designations is considered to changes to TS SRs 4.7.11.1.1.f.3 and insolve no significant hazards be an administrative change.

4.7.114 b involve no significant hazards considerations. The appheation for amendment was considerations. l.occ/ Public Document Room onginally noticed in the Federal Register Change No. 4 proposes to renumber locchon: Cah ett County Library Prince (52 FR 45684) on December 2.1987, the Units 1 and 2 TS SR 4.7.11.1.1.f 3 as Fredenck. Mar > land. CECO supplemented their initial 1

l l

1

l 1

822 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 8 / Wednesday. january 13. 1988 / Notices submittal on December 10.1M7 to b The new time delay settina is more by present TS. the proposed amendme-nt I incorporate the proposed time delay conservatne than the value that currently would prescribe that all procedure setImg into apphcable surs eillance '""' m the Quad Cines TS changes "shall be resiew ed ed requirements of Table 4 21.This revised

• I time delay setting for TS table 4 21 had ly"g ,'g'*M*[',"[',' *j'g approsed by the Technical Staff has e no effect on plant operation. Supervis r. the Assistant been inads ertently omitted from the 3 Insohe a sigmf. cant reduction in the Supermtendent and department November 6.1W apphcation for margm of safety because. head.. ". Altering reuew and appros al ,

amendment. a The number of itPCI and RCIC responsibihties for changes ta Bcsis forproposed no signihcont instrument channels are corrected to reflect procedures (identified in TS Section 6 A bczards consideration determmotion actual plant conhgwation and ongmat and 6 D) in th:s fashion. should increase The Commission has prosided desum There are no changes being rnade to hardw are.ne proposed amendment does consistency and improse umformit3 for ,

standards for determininE whether e all areas of plant actisities. Furthermore.

significant hazards consideration eusts not reduce the maram cf safety since the minimum number of operable of tnpped this proposed amendunI will also ds stated in (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A channels witi be moe, conservative elevate tesiew responsibilit3 to a higher proposed amendment to an operating b. The new meumum time delay setimg les el of management, license for a facihty involves no will be more conservative than the value Bos/8 [of ff"PC3Pd fM 3/# mIECIF significant hazards consideration if currenti) m Ts hazards comderctmn dele =/nc!W operation of the facility in accordance c. Cormction of typwaphical errors The Commission has prosided with the proposed amendment would ins.tve the designation for llPCI standards for determ:mng whetha a not: (1) involve a significant increase in in*% ment 8kn n 88 % mar 005"" significant hazards consideration emts un* 'd the probability or consequence of an as stated in (10 CFR 50.92(c)l. A accident previously esaluated or (2) The Commission has nviewed the proposed amendment to an operatmg

""8 " ' " " "'" 4U* 8" create the possibility of a new or .

hcense for a faciht) invols es no different kind of accident from any c neurs with their analysis for n sigmficant hazards consideration if accident previously evaluated: or (3)

• E"" '"" . hazards considnation operation of the facihty in accordance involve a significant reduction in a determination. Accordingly, the with the proposed amendment would margin of safety. In accordance with to Commission proposes to determine the "I "*'"u ned ammdmmt mquest not. (1) involve a sigmfacant increase m CFR Sn 91(a). the licensee has provided -

the probabihty or consequence of an the following analysis in their does not involve a significant hazards accident previously es aluated, or (2) ,

amendment apphcation addressing #"' E" @

• these three standards o/N/$ Document Room '

localmn: Dmon Pubhc Library,221 ddlerent kind of accident from an).

CECO has anal > zed this proposed Hennephin Avenue. Dnon,lihnois accident pres'ious1y esa1uated. or (3) amegdment and determined that 61021 operation of the facility,in accordance with the proposed amendment. w ould A ttorney to hcensee: Mchael 1. Miller.

F,sq ofIsham. Lincom. A Beale at Three

$ fq',' ,

,"r

""h" d not- the following analysis in their First National Plaza Suite $200.

1. tru oh e a ::anificant increase m the Chicaso. Ilknois unr02. amendment appIicat;on addressmg probabibty or conwquences of an accident these three standards preuously es aluated because: NRC Pm/ect Directorc Daniel R.

g'g CECO has analyzed this preposed

a. previously evaluated accidents we*e amendment and determmed that based on two channels f ar the RCIC and Commonwealth Edison Company, operation of the facihty. m accordance llPCI steam hne flow indications rather than with the proposed amendment. would inur this means that the avaluations were Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50 265. Quad based on canditions that actually eust m t9 Cities helear Pow er Station. Units 1 not:

plant, not the riumber of c.bannels found m and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois 1. Invohe a significant mcrease m the the current Technical Specifications plant probabahty or consequentes of an accident Date of apphootion for amendmente operationi and accident anal)ses are not preuoust) es aluated becaase the proposed December 22.1987 changed amendment merel> cstabbshes an upper Description of amendment wqueste bound bmit for the refuel fbor radation b ne proposed t. ne dela) settmg is lower The proposed amendment would revise than the settma wtuch currently custs rnowors consirtent with wh.it currentl>

Technical Specifications (TS) 3.2.D.3 eusts in the Tech Specs This is considered Operatma with a maumum t2me delay settmg (refuelms floor radiahon monitor to be a change m the consers atne directen of nine seconds is more conservatne that the setpointj and associated bases, and TS prevmusly approsed ten second salue. and will not effcci e> stem desisn or safet>

61C.1 (review responsibihties for Id"C h*^'

c Chaninna matrument destrnation to De proposed amend nent also rmes the 4 correct typographical errors are considered to changes to procedures)~ '

be on aJnunistratae change and has no Current TS estabhsh a trip setpo. m t of Icvel of renews for procedure chanses to tre Assistant supenniendent les el for al!

effect upon preuously esatuated accident 100 mR/hr for refuehng floor rad.ation procedures identified m section 62 A and scenanos. monitors. Commonwealth Edison

2. Create the possibihty of a new or 6 2 B of the TS This chanae res hs m a Company (CECO. the hcensee) has higher lesel or approsal for chansas to d.fferent kind of accident from any accident proposed revisma tlus setpomt to 1eas procedures than is currently prouded m the i reviously evaluated because- than or equal to 100mR/ht"in order to

' TS T1us char ee is considered io be a The number ofIFCI and RCIC

prevent possible inadsettent trips dudng admmwratae in natu*e and should impm e metrument channels a e corrected to reflect the quahty of plant procedures used to the number of channels that actually eust. Instrurnent calibration. These radiation and upon whach the ongmal system design monitors are calibrated to 100 rnR/hr OP"' th' ' "

which does not allow for norrnal 1 Creat:'he possibahty of a new or was based ne manner m which the plant has been or wdi be operated does not instrument setpoint drift if the TS in,p differeni kmd of accident from am accident i

preuously esaluated beuwse trie prrposed change. Ad.11tionau). operatma with a 8etPoint is also at 100 rr.R/hr. , mend.nen, d3,s noi ,xceed the ,usimg j rmnimum number of tw o tripped or operable Instead of allowing review and setpoint for ref ael f'.oor radiation men: tort

itPCI or RCJC b*sh flon mitrument thannels approval responsibihties to be spht up but rather makes 1WmRIhr the oper j is more conservatne than with four channels amongr various subject areas as required boundmg salue There are no hardn are 9 - v 7_,_ _ . _ _ - , , , - . - , , , , , , . p y .,.,g_,_, , , , , , ,, - , , ,,_,,,__,pr.

Feder:I Regist:r / Vol. 53. No. 8 / Wednesday, lanuary 13. 1988 / Notices 823 thenges. nor are there any new modes of Scruces Department procedures which General Public Utilities Nuclear operanon associated with this amendment. contain tnformahon descnbed in Reg Jatory Corporation. Docket No. 50 320. Three Reused nuew and .pprosal Guide 110 nsponsibibties for procedures changes =ould Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 (TMI-The abibty to handle sources has been 2). Dauphin County, Penns)h ania be an administratne change No new demonstrated at Pahsades since the eqwpment or modes of operation have been Prousional Operating License was issued. Dcle of amendment reques' A phl 23 intro L:ed as a result of this TS revision Personnel quahfica tions, facih ties. and 1987, resised October 26,198?.

Reus.og the authongshon lesel for procedure equipment and procedures for handhng has e November 9,1987. and Decernber .t.

channes to a higher level does not introduce also been estabhshed Surveillance leak 1987, any new eqmpment or modes of cperation at teshna to determine source leakage was Quad Cities Station- Description -

incorporated into the Technical Specification. The proposeo. of amendment reqmt.

3 Insolve a significant reduction in the Section tL21. nppros ed in Amendment No 98 amendment would reuse rnarsin of safety because the setpoint of The amount of reactor fuel which can be TM12 Operating License No. DpR-73 by toomR/hr is not beira changed to a different received, possessed, and used may vary from modifying Appenda A Technical

. salue. but rather is bnoming an upper the present bcense hmit but will be hmited by Specifications Sections 2 Safety Lenits bounding ulue for the refuel noor radiat on available storage and amounts required for 3 Limiting Conditions for Opi reimn. 3!

monitors This will prevent inadvertent tnps operation. 4 Basis for Limiting Conditions for whah may occur because of normal The changes do not invoh e a significant Operations and Sun eillance hazards consideration at Pahsades as this Requirements, and 6 Admmistrehse helle ses A de on turn 7he 1 /hr change would not-setpoint allowed by the proposed TS change Controls. Additionally. the proposal would result in an increased margin (i e. Ul l"*0l" * *'8" **"'I"C"*"'" ' would amend the Indes. The propose d radiation lev el setpoint is only allow ed to be lowend)

{' hj$'s]hange re es the amendment would estensis ely res ise license conditions for the amount of special the TM12 Technical Specifications to Section 6 revisions are considered to be abgn bcense requirements appropstate administrative m nature This TS revision nuclear matenal source matenal. and byproduct materialin accordance with the to current, as well as future, plant Ic no ha ould effect t a plant NRC e letter of lanuary 24.1975, with some conditions through the remamder of the systems are being operated rnodification. Provisions to ensure reactor current cleanup operations. At the end fuelis hmited to amounts compatible with the of the current cleanup operations the The Commission has reviewed the present possession amounts are controlled by hcensee plans to place the facthty into a licensee's TS amendment request and the smount of storage space and fuel post defuehng monitored storage concurs with their analysis for no necessary for reactor opershon as descrwed significant hazards consideration condmon (PDMS). The proposed in the PSAR.

determination. Accordmgly. the The sources will be adequately leak tested. amendment allows for the tranunon from the current defuehng phase thro #

a ned as equ red by the chnical the completion of defuehng and offsite fo em t one men entr est fuel shipment by the incorporation o does not involse a significant hazards Specincahon. Sechon a 21.

d (2) Create the possibility of a new or technical specifications that are col / Document Room different kind of accident ir m any applicable during specific phases or location: Dixon Pubhc Library, y1 preuously analyzed Appropnate controls for modes of the cleanup. Certam technu al nceipt. handhng and storage of the special specifications are retained durmg the Hennephin Asenue Dmon,Illmois nuclear matenal, byproduct r6atenal and 61021. entire transttion period while others are source matenal are in place and remain Attorney to licensee: Michael l. Miller- unchanged as a result of:hn request t phased out or modihed as the cleans,p Esq of Isham. Lincoln. & Beale at Three ensure no new or different accident will be 8 f I First National Plaza Suite 5200, crea ted. {9[(8 h[g'uld e dependent on Chicago Ilhnois 60002 (31 involve a significant reduchon in a the status of the cleanup as defmed t3 NRC Project Director: Daniel R. maron of safety. The controls over the the facility mode. Three cleanup modes Muller rece:pt. handling and storage rerr.ain are proposed:

unchanged as a result of this request These Mode 1 The current condition durirs Consumers Power Company, Docket No. controls will ensure no safety marrn i8 50-255 Palisades Plant, Van Buren which defueling and other major tash reduced. are in progress.

County, Michigan The Palisades Plant Review Date of amendment request- May 20.

Mode 2 The period subsequent to Committee has reviewed this Technical defuehng of the reactor vessel and the 1987. Specification Change Request and has Description of amendment request: reactor coolant system but pnor to determined that this change involves no completion of the core debris shippmg The proposed change would revise the significant hazards consideration.

heense condition for the receipt, program.The possibility of cnticahts m The Commission's staff has reviewed the Reactor Building (RD' )is precluded possession and use of byproduct, source the licensee's evaluation and agrees.

and special nuclear material in and no canisters containmg core The staff therefore proposes to material are in the RB.

accordance with a standard generabred determine that this propesed Mode 3 The period subsequent to format that allows flexibihty in amounts amendment involves no stgnificant of such matenalin support of reactor shipment of the remaining core matenal

, hazards consideration. offsite.

So*s s ! rproysedno significant Local Public Document Room Thirty daya pnor to an antscipnted hozords considerotion determination: locotion: Van Zoeren Library, Hope change in rnode, the I censee propost s to The hcensee has evaluated this College, llolland. Mich2 Fan 49423. submit to the NRC a report which ,

proposed amendment for determining Attorney forlicensee: ludd L Bacon. provides the basis for the transition Esq., Consumers Power Company,212 l whether or not it mvolses a significant As noted above the hcensee has l hazards considerahon as follor's: West Michigan Avenue. jackson. defined Mode 1 as the current cleanup l The control of taproduct, source or special Michigan 49201. condition 2nd Mode 2 would beg n nuclear maienal sources esceeding im NRC Proje ct Director Martm l. following the completion of defuehrm milhcunes is by appresed Radiolorcal Virgilio The hcensee's Mode 1 defuelirp progren l

l

821 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 8 / Wednesday. january 13. 1988 / Notices is apeded to resuh m the remos al of 3 7.1n 2. Deluge /Spnnkler Systems: The licensee proposes to make greater than 99 + of the reactor fuel 3 7.10 4. Fire Hose Stations; 3 7.11, T echnical Specification 31.12. Baron Dunr.g Mode 1 all techn cal Penetration Fire Barners: 3 9121, Fuel Concentration Reactor Coolant System spo ification requirements, with one Handhng Duildmg Air Cleanup Eshaust apphcable only dunng Mode 1. Boration eueption. currently m the hcense w ould System; 3.9.12.2. Ausihary Buildmg Air of the RCS is for the pres ention of an be mamtamed This exception involves Cleanup Eshaust System and 3.913. inads ettent criticahty. Once Mode 1 the hcensee's proposal to immediate!3 Accident Generated Water from defuehng is completed the possibihty of ,

deh te the requirement for NRC approsal "Recos ery Mode " which is the current an madvertent criticahty is ehmmated, prior to changes m their Rad:ation term for the ongomg cleanup operations. therefore. boration of the RCS is Prutection Plan, to "Modes 1,2. 3" which is the licensees' unnecessary.

Afier the tranution from Mode 1 to proposed terminology for the remainder The licensee proposes to modify -

mmc : the spiems and requirements of the current cleanup effort. Technical Specification 31.1.3. Fuel for monitonns and protectin;; the reactor Accordmgly, there would be a change m Transfer Canal and Fuel Storage Pool A rote are no longer needed and the the termmology but not in the heensee proposes their deletion The Baron Concentration, which currently -

apphcabihty of the requirements. To specifies boration of the Fuel Transfer ibt.*d Watet Iniection Carability, parallel this change the licensee Canal and the Spent Fuel Storage Pool Heu f or Coolarit System Water Control. proposes to delete from section 1.3 the "A" by removing the requirement for Recctor Coolant System Temperature defimt.on of "Recovery Mode" and boration of the Spent Fuel Pool and Control and Neutron Monitormg are replace it with the three modes placing it in a new section 31.14. Boron cumples of systems and monitoring discussed abos e.

capahihty which would no longer be Concentration. Spent Fuel Pool "A", and A reused defmition of "Containm nt makmg the remamder of 31.1.3.

needed Additionally, the requirement Integnty"(Section 11) is proposed. The for bcensed operators would no lonsor pertaming only to the fuel transfer new defmition is consistent with the be needed once the core material is canal. and applicable on!) during Mode current definition but has been modif:e'd 1. Once Mode 1 defuehng is compieted remmed Also, the hcensee proposes to to define specific criteria under which deb te the requirement for preapproval there is no further need for the fuel double valve isolation esternal to of ;nocedures by the NRC- containment would be allowed due t transfer canal and therefore. no boration 1te transition from Mode 2 to Mode 3 the umque circumstances of TMla. requirements are necessary to asett wo Ad farther reduce the operabihty criticahty. Dunng Mode 2 there may sti:1 These cnteria are similar to those which be canisters containing core debris in ryqurements for certain plant systems. fall under the present prousion of f or esample. with the remm al offstie of allowing double valve isolation outside the Spent Fuel Pool "A". Therefore, an of the defueled core matenal. the containment in accordance with NRC thre would be a contmuing requirement req iirements to maintain a specific appros al. to ma ntam boration of the fuel pool.

war level and boron conrentration for A new definition of ' Containment The proposed section 11.1.4. pertaining Spcrt Fuel Pool'A' would be deleted only to Spent Fuel Pool"A" would be Isolation"(Section 121) has been added apphcable danng Modes 1 and 1 Addaionalh. hmitatmns on crane to the Definitions Section. The hcensee operation inside the Fuelllandhng proposes to add this definition to The hcensee proposes to make Duddmg would be deleted and the support the addition of Technical h&d %dma M n requrement for the collection of Specification 3 61.1 Containment Intermediate and Source Range Neutron marotological daia would be isola:ien requirements have been added Eus M na rs. apphcable only during chmmated from the Technic al for Modes 2 ar d 3 to provide prosisions M de 1. Once Mode 1 defueling is Spenficatmns c mpleted. the shutdown status of the for maintainms the containment as a The hcensee also proposes a number contammation barner dunng these two core is assured and the basis for of admmistratae changes to the facihty modes. mamtairung these monitors no longer Tennical Specihcations Sections that The'hcensee proposes to chance the esists. The beensee also proposes to has e been deleted in preuous hcense phase "Recosery Mode" to "Facihty delete from the action statement the amendments w ould be completeh Mode" in Section 3.01, Limiting requirement that a Special Report be remos ed from the Technical Conditions for Operation. to reflect the submitted if the momtors are Spenfications and no mention of their use of modes m the apphcabihty of inoperatae Accordmg to 10 CFR 5033 past incorporation in the hcense would certain Technical Specifica tions. a hcensee is required to submit a aprear in the amended Technical Proposed chances to Technical Licensee Es ent Report (LER) when a Sg cification Section 1 Saft ty Lirnits. Specification 31.1.1, Borated Cochns Technical Specification Action prenoush deleted, would be revised to Water injection, incorporate a minimum Statement has not been satisfied. The state that there are no safety hmits temperature requirement in the action requirement for a special report is appbcable to TM14. The hcensee also statement and apphcabihty of this redundant with the requirements undt r preposes to reuse the Technical specification only during Mode 1 10 CFR 5013 The LER would contain Specification indes to be consistent with Borated cooling water injection the same information as required by the .

the deletions No estensae renumbenng capabihty to the Reactor Coolant Special Report.

of the remaming technical specifications System IRCSI to ehminate the Techmcal Specifications 3 31 is propased. possibihty of an inadsertent criticality is Ene:neered Safety Feature Actuation lhe hcensee proposes to chance the only apphcable if there is fuelin the Sys tem (ESFASl In strumenta tion. would apphtabihty of Technical Specthcations RCS Once Mode 1 defuehng is be deleted by the hcensee.The current 3 3 31. Radiation Momtoneg completed there is no requirement for technical specificat:on requires the instrumentatmn 3,3.3 B Fire Detect:on barated water injection The minimum {

operabihty of one ESFAS channel '

Instrumentation. 3 614. Internal temperature requirement was added to Pressure; 3 6 31. Containment Purge related to the automatic startma of Ge the action statement to be consistent diesel generators with loss of offsite Eshaust System. 3 7.61. Flood with the mmimum temperature power Amendment 27 deteted the Protecta 3D Scaled Sources requirements elsewhere m the operabihty requirements for the diesel 3 7.101. Fire Suppressic.n W ater System. specifica tian generators There is no longer a basis for

Fodzral Register / Vol. 53, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 1988 / Notices 825

nalntaining the ESFAS Instrumentation to Mode 1. The requirements for reactor requirement to maintsin a specific borun operable, building pressure (1 above) has been concentration or a potential source of The hcensee proposes to change the transferred to Section 4 6.1.4 a of the heat to cause boiling. Consequently, the applicability of Technical Specification Recovery Operations plar.. The capability to monitor the RCS water 3.3.3 4. Meteorological Instrumentation, requirement for reactor vessel water temperature and RCS pressure would from Recovery Mode to Modes 1 and 2 level (2 above) has been transferred to not be required.

and the time clock in the action technical specification 3.4 2, the Technical Specification 3.51 Control statement would be changed from eight requirement for spent foel storage pool Room Communications presently require hours to seven days. The potential off. "A" water level (7 above) has been that direct communications between the site consequences of the worst case transferred to technical specification control room or the communication accident during Mode 3. a fire in the 3.9.1 and the reoutrement for fuel center and personnelin the reactor reactor building la bounded by the transfer canal (deep end)(8 above) has building be maintained. The licensee

, numerical guidelines of 10 CFR 50 been transferred to technical proposed to make this requirement Appendix 1. Since the basis for requiring specification 3.9.3. Once the reactor applicable only during Mode 1 when meteorological data is to evaluate the vessel has been defueled there is no core alterations are being made. The need for initiating protective measures requirement for monitoring incere current specification states that it is to protect the health and safety of the temperature. reactor building water applicable during core alterations. Once public and the worst case release is less level, borated water storage tank level the licenaea completes Mode 1 defueling than the releases permitted under or the steam generator level. there will no longer be any core, Appendix I no protective measures Technical Specification 3.3.37 therefore, core alterations would not be would be necessary.Therefore there Chlorine Detection Systems would be possible and this requirement would not would be no requirement to maintain modified by the licensee by making the be necessary, meteorological instrumentation for TMI. specification applicable only during The licensee proposes to change

2. Changing the action statement Mode 1. Chlonne detection is required Technical Specification 3 e.t.1, requiring an inoperable meteorological to protect the inhabitants of the control Containment Integrity, the current monitonng channel to be restored within room. An accidental chlorine release specification is applicable during the a specified period of time from 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> would be detected promptly and the Recovery Mode the licensee has to 7 days is consistent with the Control Room Emergency Ventilation proposed making it applicable only requirements of the B&W Standard System would automatically iso!6te the during Mode 1. Once Mode 1 defueling Technical Specifications and the TMl 2 control room and initiate recirculation. is completed double containment pre. accident Technical Specification. Manning the control room will only be isolation would no longer be required The requirement for the eight hour required during Mode 1 (see proposed sir.ce the maximum possible release of timeclock was incorporated in Technical changes to Section 6.2.2 below). Once radionuclides due to the worst case Specification 3.314 by the NRC the fuel has been removed from the RCS accident a fire inside containment.

Amendment of Order dated February 11. the requirement for manning the control would be less than the 10 CFR 50 1980. At the time of this Order, the room with licensed operators will be Appendix I numerical guidelines. The Reactor Bullding contained high deleted. Therefore, the maintenance of licensee proposes to further modify the concentration of radioactive Krypton.85, the Chlorine Detection System would be specification by allowing modifications as well as many other radionuclides. In unnecessa ry, to containment penetrations provided the esent of a leak from the facility it The licensee proposes to change the that a single isolation barrier to would hase been and has been applicability of Technical Specification important to hase operable maintained. lf no isolation barriers are 3 4 2. Reactor Vessel Water Les el provided the action statement requires meteorologicalinstrumentation to Monitoring. from 11ecovery Mode to assess the consequences of the release.

the cessation of any activity inside the Mode 1. The reactor vessel water level reactor building that could result in a As the cleanup progresses the monitor er.sures that bdication is radiation release.

magnitude of potentially airbome available to monitor for changes in the Technical Specification 3.6.13.

radionuclides in the facility that could reactor vessel water level. This des tce Containment Air Locks (Mode 1). would be taleased te the environment has been provides warning of a leak in the RCS be modified by the licensee to be substantially reduced.Therefore, the inventory that could result in a boron applicable only during Mode 1. The licensee concludes that the onginal need dilution event. Once defueling of the specification requires the operability of for the rapid restoration of reactor vesselis completed it is no meteorological data channels no longer each air lock and both air lock doors. If longer necessary to maintain water in an air lock is inoperable the requirement exists. the reactor vessel. consequently, the The licensee proposed to change is to mainialn at least one door closed capability to monitor the water level is and repair the air lock to operable status Technical Specification 3.3 3 5. Essential no lunger required.

Parameter Monitoring Instrumentation. within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Once Mode 1 defuelms The licensee proposes to change the is completed the source term for en The specification currently requires the applicability of Technical Specification monitoring of the following essential inadvertent release of radioactivity to 3 4.9 Pressure / Temperature umits from the environment is substantially parameters: (1) reactor buildmg Recovery Mode to Mode 1.The current pressure. (2) reactor vessel water level, reduced. consequently, the need to specification states that the RCS shall restore the air lock to operable status (1) incore temperature. (4) reactor remain open to the reactor buildmg buildmg wuter level 151 borated water would not be required.

atmosphere and that repressurization The licensee proposes to add storage tank level. (6) steam generator shall only be allowed following NRC Technical Specification 3.6.1.2.

les el. (7) spent fuel storage pool"A" water level, a nd (8) fuel transfer canal approval. Temperature limits on the RCS Containment Isolsticn. The proposed are specified to prevent precipitation of Technical Specification would require (deep end) water level. the boron or boiling of the Reactor l The licensee proposed to make primary containment isolation durms coolant. Once Mode 1 defueling is Modes 2 and 3.The specification would parame'ers 3,4. 5 and 6 applicable only completed there would be no proside an appropnate provision for

826 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 1988 / Notices maintaining the containment as a specifications is to assure thnt the be eliminated and the specification will contamination barrier sulaequent to power sources and associated Mode 1 defueling. There wou' i no na longer be required.

distribution systems are available to The licensee proposes to change the longer be a requirement for double supply the safety related equipment isolation of penetrations. applicability of Technical Specification required to maintain the unit in a stable 3.*0.2. Crane Operations. Fuel Handling The licensee also proposes to add condition following the March za.1979 Technical Specification 3.6.1.6, Building, from Recovery Mode to Modes acc! dent. Once Mode 1 defueling is 1 and 2. The basis for this specification Containment Air Locks (Modes 2 and 3). completed no safety related equipment is to prevent a load drop in the Fuel Each containment air lock would be considered operable with at least one will be required to maintain the unit in a Handling Puilding causing damage to

• safe and stable condition, consequently, canisters containing core material.

air lock door operable during Modes 2 the power sources and distribution and 3. This would provide an Subsequent to Modes 1 and 2 all core systems would not be required. The material will have been shipped off. site.

appropriate containment barrier licensee also proposes to ,

Thus, the basis for controlbng heavy subsequent to de'aeling. There would no administratively renumber loads inside the Fuel Handling Building longer be a requirement for double specifications 3.8.2.Lb, and 3.8.2.3 and isolation capabilit/ for the air locks. is eliminated and the specification is nct 3.8.2.2.1 respectively. required.

Technic.il Specification 3.6.1.5, Air Technical Specifications 3.9.1, Spent The licensee proposes to clarify the Temperature gecifies the pn. mary containment average air temperature- Fuel Pool "A" Water Level Monitoring applicability of portions of Technical The licensee proposes to make this and 3.9.2 Spent Fuel Pool 'A" Water Specification 6.2 2. TMI-2 Ore anization.

specification applicable only during Level require monitoring of the water Specification 6.2.2 specifies in part. the Mode 1. The purpose of this level n the spent fuel pool and staffing required by 10 CFR 50.54 specification is to insure that the life of maintenante of a level specified in the paragraphs (m)(2) (ii) and (m)(2)(iii) for instrumentation and equipment installed Recovery Operations Plan. The licensee fueled nuclear power plants. Subsequent m the containment is maximized, and proposes to establish the applicability to to Mode 1 defueling TMI.2 will no longer these two specifications to Modes 1 and be considered fueled and the hcensee t t the boron m he RCS wil r main in p g p y 2. Spent Fuel Storage Pool "A" is used to proposes that the requirements for n gs store defueling canisters containing core licensed operators will no longer apply.

r[cyit{c e on , material prior to shipment offsite. While Furthermore. the current specification P

requirements for the operability of most canisters are in storage in the spent fucl states that a licensed operator would be of the mstrumen mion and equipment, pool the fuel pool will be flooded and in the cor. trol room when there is fuel in r.nd boration of the RCS, consequently, borated. Once all canisters have been the reactor.The licensee proposes that removed from the TMI site the spent fuel specifying the applicability to only nt in en t pe at re ithin a p I will n 1 nger be used. Mode 1, when there is fuel in the specified range is not required. consequently, monitoring and . reactor, is an admmistrative change The licensee proposes to modify maintenance of a specific wate 4evel consistent with NRC regulations.

Technical Specification 31.7.1. Control w uld no longer be required. ,

Specification 6.2.2.C states that an Room Emergency Air Cleanup System The mdividual qualified in radiation by changing the applicability from Techm, callicensee proposes Specifications to change 3.9.3, Fuel protection procedures shall be on site Recovery Mode to Mode 1. The Control Transfer Canal (Deep End) Water Level when fuel is in the reactor. The licensee Room Eraergency Air Cleanup System is Monitoriag. and 3.9.4 Fuel Tra,nsfer proposes to change the wording of this required to be maintained operab!e to Canal (Deep End) Water Leve, by specification to "During Mode 1 an protect control room operators in the establishing the applicability of the individual qualified in radiation event of an accident and to maintain specifications to Mode 1. The Fuel protection procedures shall be onsite control room habitability in the event of Transfer Canalis used to transfer when fuel is in the reactor."

chemical releases. Once Mode 1 defueling canisters from the reactor The licensee proposes to limit the

. defueling is completed there will be no building to the fuel handling building. applicabihty of Technical Specificacion requirement to man the control room While tran?fers take place the Fuel 6.8.2.2. Procedures. to Mode 1. The (gee proposcd changes to Section 6.2 2). Transfer Canalis flooded and borated current Technical Specification requires conseqt .tly maintenance of control to protect personnel from radiation. NRC review and approval of all room habitability is not required. Once Mode 1 defueling is completed the procedures and changes thereto which Technical Specification 31.10.3, Halon Fuel Transfer Canal will no longer be alter the distribution or processing of a System protects circuits and equipment needed to transfer defueling canisters quantity of radioactive material the required for safe shutdown and core and, therefore, monitoring and release of which could cause the protection in specific areas of the plant maintenance of a specific waterlevel magnitude of radiological relcases to from the propagation of a fire.The would no lenger be required. exceed 10 CFR 50 Appendix Ilimits.

licensee proposes to change the Technical Specification 3.10.1, Crane Once Mode 1 defueling is completed the applicability of this specification from Operations.Containmer. hilding, potential source term within the reactor Reco"ery Mode to Mode 1. Once Mode 1 delimits load travel within containment. building and the maximum credible defueling is completed there will be nn ne license proposes to change the accident a fire, would not result in a circuits or equipment necessary for the applicability of the specification from maximum dose to an individual from protection of the core. Recovery Mode to Mode 1. ne basis for fission products and transuranics in The licensee propo.es to change the th!s specification is to prevent a load excess of10 CFR Appendix !limitt,.

applicability of Specification 3.8.1 A.C. drop into the reactor vessel causing a Although during Mode 2 there will be Sources. ? 8 2, Onsite Power Distribution reconfiguration of the core debris and/ defueling canisters cont inir.g Systems, and 3.82.5. DC Di.stribution. or structural damage which could hinder significant amounts of fuel still onsite

~ The licensee proposes to chang the defueling. Once Mode 1 defueling is the licensee is of the opinion that these applicability from Recovery Mode to emnpleted the basis for controllind canisters have proven to be effective in Mode 1. The purpose of these heavy lads inside the containment will

! preventing inadvertent criticality.

l l

Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 1988 / Notices 827 Furthermore, potential accident required to maintain TMl 2 in its current the operating cycle interval to 15 months scenarios associated with these safe shutdown condition. Once Mode 1 as regards instrument and electrical canisters have shown that they provide defueling is cor sleted the possibility of surveillance. The proposed change adequate protection for the public, an offsite release of radiation in excess would defme the operating cycle The licensee proposes to changa of 10 CFR 50 Appendix ! limits is greatly Technical Specification 611. Radiation interval as 18 months instead of 15 reduced. Those systems necessary to months and would delete the reference Protection Program, by deleting the monitor the core and facilitate defueling to electrical and instrumentation requirement for NRC approval of the will no longer be required. Maintenance surs eillance.

Rad.ation Protection Plan. Removal of of these systems will no longer be this requirement is based on the past Basis forproposed no significent necessary.

performance of the licensee in the area hatords consideration determination-The proposed changes do not create The Commission has provided of radiation protection ano the desire to the possibility of a new or different kind remove the NRC from the procedure standards for determining whethe a

• of accident from any accident previously significant harstds consideration exists review and approval cycle at TMI.2. It is evaluated because no new modes of (10 CFR Part 50.92(c)). A proposed also consistent with the Standard operation or new equipment are being Technical Specifications for Babcock amendment to an operating license for a introduced. Deletion of monitoring facility involves no sigmficant hazards and Wilcox plants. Auditing by the NRC requirements cannot create the considerationif operation of the fact!ity of the Rt : tion Protec' ion Plan and possibility of any new or different kind in accordance with the proposed licensee compliance with the plan would of accident. Deletion of safety systems continue. designed to protect the core once the amendment would not:(1)Invols e a Basis forproposed no significant significant increase in the probabihts or core is removed cannot increase the consequences of an accident presiokv hozords consideration determ. nation; probability of accidents.The proposed The Commission has provided evaluated: or (2) c eate the possibihty of changes represent a gradual reduction in new or different kind of accident from standards for determining whether a the scope oflicense requirements and significant hazards consideration exists any accident previous!y evaluated; or [3]

are consistent with the changmg status involve a significant reduction in a in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed of the facility as the cleanup progresses.

amendment to an cperatmg license for a margin of safety.

The proposed changes do not involve facility involves no significant hazards a significant reduction in a margin of The Standard Technical consideration if operation of the facility safety, because, as mentioned Specif cations (STS) include a in accordance with the proposed perviously, no active components are Suneillance Frequency Notations table amendment would n,ct: (1) involve a required to maintain the current safe (Table 11) which defines a refueling significant increase iri the probability or shutdown of TMI 2. Furthermore, as the cycle interval as 18 months A copy of consequences of an accident previously cleanup progresses the margin of safety this table is incorporated in the TS for evaluated. (2) crea'e the possibility of a Hatch Unit 2. However, the Hatch Unit 1 increases. Once Mode 1 defueling and new or different kind of accident from Mode 2 offsite shipment is completed TS. which are in an earlier "custom" TS.

h

• C def any accident involve previously a significant reductionevaluated, in a or (3) there will be a significant increase in the .{.,1fj'anfe^Fh uen n which it is margin of safety.

margin of safety. Based on the above considerations. stated that:"The operatin8 cycle TMI 21:in a long term cold shutdown the staff propcses to determine that the

$en}al s per ..n ng to in trument and for accident recovery. Short lived fission proposed changes do not involve a ,

products which make up the significant hazards consideration. exceed 15 months... The terms operatmg i preponderance of the source term for Loca/ Public Document Room cycle and refoling cycle are operating reactors have decayed to location: State IJbrary of Pennsylvania synonymous. Thus, the 15. month negligible levels. The decay heat Government Publications Section. pusting cycle for Unit 1. as specified in produced by the core has now dropped Education Building. Commonwealth and TS 1.!!. is more restrictive than the 18-to less than 10 kilowatts and forced Walnut Streets. Harrisburg. month refueling cycles specified in the cooling of the core has not been required Pennsylvania 17128. STS and in the Hatch Unit 2 TS Further or used since 1981. Consequently, in A ttorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, comp 4cating matters. Amendment 110 to previous license amendments. the staff Jr. Shaw Pittman. Potts and the Hatch Unit 1 TS added a Table 1.1.

has determined that the potential Trowbridge,2300 N Street. NW. "Frequency Notations." in which a accidents analyzed for TMI 2 in the Washington. DC 20037. refuelmg cycle intervalis specified as current mode are bounded in scope and NRC Project Director: William D. 18 months. Howeves Section 1.11 was severity by the range of accidents Travers not changed. Thus, the Unit 1 TS are FSAR. Intemally ir. consistent. The licensee (

originally The changesanalyzed proposedin bythe the facilitficensee Georgia Power Company. Oglethorpe proposes to change the words in Hatch I

are changes to the Appendix A Power Corporation. Municipal Electric Authonty of Gergia, W of Dalton. Unit 1 definition of Surveillance {

Technical Specifications. They consist Frequency to: "The operating interval is l primarily of specifying the Georgia. Docket No. 50 321. Edwin 1.

defined as 18-months." This change '

circumstances under which the existing Hatch Nudear Plant, Unit 1. Appling would remove the internalinconsistency Specifications are applicable and Canty, Gergia and would adjust the operating cycle for improving the clarity of the Date of amendment request July 13. Hatch Unit 1 to the same 18. month requirements. The proposed changes do 1987 period allowed for Unit 2.

not significantly increase the probability Description of amendment request: The licensee states that the actual or consequences of an accident This amendment would modify a plant trip setpoints for instruments and previously evaluated because no provision of Section 1.!! of the Hatch electrical equipment are set r%anges to current safety systems or Unit 1 Technical Specifications (TS) conservane to the TS allowable values.

setpoints are proposed while there is which limits the operating cycle length such that the allowable values are not still sufficient fuelin the RCS to cause a for instrument and electrical compromised during an operating cycle criticality event. No active systems are surveillance. The existing TS 1.!! limits by instrument drift. Extendmg the l .

828 Fedaral Register / Vol. 53. No. B f Wednesday. january 23. 388 / NoUces allowatde time betwem refuehnes to 18 REMP wilhtill be required by the Theretare. the techcacal specif4catna months inste ad of 15 rntwiths woJd Technical Specifications. It has change for the Radiols M require an adtustment o the actual tnp evsbated TECR 1731o determmeif a Enviroamental Mandormg Program does I setpoirits, but mmid not affect the TS snmificant harards consideration exists.

allowable setpotets. Thus. this chanee not involm a aWaif2 cant increase in the The tesuits of this evatustion are gh en probabihty of occurrence or '

wvidd mot envahe a s:gmf cant it crease below in terms of the enteria in 10 CFR consequences of an accadeat presiously j in the probabshey or consequentes of an so 92(c)- evaluated-accident previously evaluated.Further. Removal of the Raiological Environraeotal B. Opera tson of the faciluy in since the desqn hmtaurrs of the Monitomyr Pretrram (REMP1 from the accordance with the proposed 1

' electncal and aastrument systents are Technical Specifications reduces the vra of not affectiud by thes charege, the chanae the Techncal Spetscaueno m%et amendment would not create the l passibabty of a cew or different kind of would not crease dae possrbtlity of a new inpeaang de effectness d b N W affect from any acc4 dent prniously

• w d2fleient kmd of acudent from any ***'P' 'h' "fMP '

• d *'# '" " '"'h whW****t h H h e At Mi accident prebecasly oaluated FinaDy.

raargias of safety are raot stanshcantly A'N NjEMPent!

continue to be reqtared by sechnrcal

'9 d P Therefore it ss concloded that the redaced by the proposed change since the TS ahmab;c setpomts art specificatua even thcwh to CFR soEa does tKhaiad spectitcatico change for the not regture see REMP to be a the aechnacal Ra dwhyncal Environm ental Monitoring unchanged. specificationa %e REMPis a reformaued On the basis of the abo 6e. the Program does not create the possibihty version ei the technic.al spectricataen it of a new or different kind of accident Commuuuus has deteraumed bt the rephites we information and vecific requested ammdment rueets the three from any acodent prevsovaly es aluated.

regtmments of the prcgram are esseatd>

criteria and, therefore, has made a tu ,eue e k former tettmical spec ficati" C. Operatwi of the facabty tn proposed deternunation that the Sith she Idkwnte excepenms accordanoe with the pmposed amendment apphcatama does not 4a ec t. td.manruma traguemmes Nt a re st=cifwd amenderet would not myolve a a significant hazards cuisideratiua. stgruficant reductxm in a margin of Loco 1 Public Documed Room [ h mne . eec. es anrgnnte. Oser soinor

,, u y, safet). All safety entena as described in the former tecimical spmtfication bases locotton: Appling County Pubhc Library.

chawea hoe been smade ao be emer, are preserved in the Radudogical 301 City llall Dris e. L der. Geotpa 3t513 consistent wuh NUREGM2 ard the Hrunce Environmental MrrJton ag Program.

Techrucal Pasa uan.

Attorneyforlicensee; B uce L. 2 Typographical errors hn e been Therefore. it is concluded that the Churchill. Esquire, Sha w. Pittman, Pona corrected.

tectsiical specf6 cation change for the and Tstwbridge,2300 N Street.NM.. 3 A reportmg requirement for Radiolorical Environmental Monitormg

% asbington. DC "0037 mwtmmer*al samp'es euced ng te Prostram does not involve a significant NRC Project Director Lawrence P. repartiaWveh es peched mTable 2 has rehn in a anamm d sai@

Crocker. Actmg Proiett Director chamead TM was daned from sn to en We grw wie N.s conclusim that I GPU Nudmar Corporanon. Dociet No. da)s eo anow adequate tune for labora twy th:s hcense a meridment request involws anahsis of samples no sigsuficant huards considerstions in 50-289. Three Mile island Nudaar Sde's and seiery ama rtes datt ranasa that operation of TM11 in accordance Stauon. Unit No. L Danaphte County. t.neffected l Pennsyhacia erith the proposed amendment will not: '

Futu.re c6res da t reduw the 1. Invoiw a sigmficant increase in the gy.e n,7,g,.gf 9,g. efrectiveness af sh in.uth .p;newed Rmp probabihty oresequences of any Nos ember 9. tw (TTCR 1731 Aall be renewed and awrmed 14 the NRC acciderrt previously etshiated. or Desenpfen of amandmer t rygtest:

Ee tomposed amendment would f,"[jd ch ica!Sp c n

2. Cevete the possibrhty of a new or Future chimges that do no3:edate the different kind of acetdent from any remow itie Ra Sobtimi Envirimmental eMeoveness chhe REMP shaft be submttled acch pmmsh ersh2aM or Monitor anz Prossum (REMP) from the to the NRC forfumew in the Anmral 3. trnche a ingnihcant redaction in a Tedmical Speof, cation s. In addt4 ion. i of 3afety.

R a diological Enuronmental Opmtme Report enarlim the RatP would be chany3 tola) far the ratod se a tad the denu wm permit monitonne frequencies to be The REMP will remain as a functional made. These ce,anaes Mij be Mly renewed preg-am and we can peiceive at this changed to calendar penods such as and approeed by CM;N sreinaaement time no syihtant hazard from w eekly, monthly, etc. (b) irteres se the c nsistent with reneur and approead time frota 30 da rs tavirt days for P' removing the RufP from the Technical

d* #@ "' '"* '"'" D "' Specihtstions. Adjustments to reporting em iromrntal sarnpks required by Techmcal Specification 6.L monitormg frequencies and one exceedmg the nportettg levels: and {c) GPUN has determined that this reporting requirement are minor and make typoeraphnt end edmimstratin tecimicel specifrcalitm thange request changes. The REMP wiil entinue 1o be poses no sr;mificant hazards as defmed inshmificar.t m terms of plant safety and by t)ee NRC rn 10 CFR S0.92. pubbc heahh. Future changes ta the requarrd by the Tedomi Spacifrestions REMP that would reduce its es en tinoueh it is not in the Technical Since this ctarae is adadnistradve: effectiveness are req ~ ired to be Specificatwns. Future d>a nges to the A. Operation of the facadyin approved by NRC prior to RalP that would ndvoe the accordance with the proposed implementatiort effecimeness d the REMP e re required a mendnmni would not irrvolve a to be reviewed and approved by NRC The staff has reviewed the bcensee's significant increase in the probability of no significant hazards cnn<f aeration prior to imgdesnentataos try the hoensrv. occmerce or consequences of nn determination and agrees with the f*zss /orproposedno s(ear 6mnt accident Wid evaluated. The licensee's analysis. Therefore. the staff bazards considemrson determirocion, techmcal sp*cification changes are proposes to determine that the The hcrnsee prcorned Techtral admicMratrve and do not affect plant Specahcitaon Chanae Requeet USCR) en lication for amendment tcrohes no eqerpment The tesults of this change significant haards conrJdera tsa.

No.173 to ressow tue REMP fmm the will not impaci the safety of the plan 1 or Technicalspecz6 canons altheneh the Loco 7 Public Doc.u/ cert Raam the rebirc hesith. location: Gos ernment Publications

Fadtral Register / Vol 53.'No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 1988 / Notices 829 Section. State Library of Pennsylvania, present the core from becoming critical the complete loss of one ECCS Education Building. Commonwealth and during the uncontrolled RCS cooldown subsystem.The proposed change will Walnut Streets. Harrisburg. (associated with a SLB) from greater not affect the LOCA analysis since it Pennsylvania 17128 than 500' F. merely adds a restnction that requires Attorneyforlicensee: Ernest L Blake, in addition. the proposed change will both ECCS subs > stems to be operable

]r.. Shaw. Pittman. Potts, and also revise the title of the subject whenever the RCS temperature is equal Trowbridge. 2300 N Street. NW.. Technical Specifications such that they to or greater than 500* F. This additional Washington. [;C 20037. will be described in terms of modes of restriction ensures that sufficient NRC Project Director John F. Stolz operation rather than average coolant borated water can be added to the RCS Loulslana Power and ught Company, temperature. to mitigate the reactivity transient Docket No. 50 382, Waterford Steam Basis for Proposed No Significant associated with the uncontrolled liCS Electric Station. Unit 3, St. Charles Rosards Considerations Determination cooldown that occurs during a steam Parish, laulslana The NRC staff proposes that the line break. Since the proposed change proposed change does not involve a adds a restriction that was not already a Date of omendment request significant hazards consideration part of the Technical Specifications and December 10.1987. because, as required by the criteria of 10 since this restriction ensures that the Description of omendment request: CFR 50.92[c), operation of the facility in The proposed change would revise consequences of a broader range of accordance with the proposed steam line breaks can be mitigated. the Technical Specification 3.5.2. ECCS amendment would not:(1) Involve a proposed change will result in an Subsystems Tavg Greater than 350* F significant increase in the probability or an ' Technical Specification 3.5.3. ECCS increase in the margin of safety.

consequences of any accident The Commission has provided Subsystems Tavg Less than 350' F by previously evaluated; or (2) Create the adding a note to the Applicability guidance concerning the application of possibility of a new or different kind of section of ooth Technical Specifications standards for determining whether acctdent from any accident previously significant hazards consideration exists to indicate that two ECCS subsystems evaluated; or (3) Involve a significant are required to be operable wnen the by providing certarn examples ($2 FR reduction in the margin of safety. The RCS aserage temperature is equal to or basis for this proposed finding is given 7751) of amendments that a:e considered not hkely to involve Tec r ca S ec fication 3.5.2 currently (1)hhe proposed change will require g ean az s consid requires two mdependent emergency that two ECCS subsystem are operable fxn pte ,e e ,o cha e at core cooling system (ECCS) subsystems wheneser the average temperature of constitutes an additional limitation.

to be operable when the reactor is in restriction or control not present!>

the RCS is equal to or greater than 500*

Modes 1. 2 and 3: how ever, the F. Th:s will ensure that, even if one included in the Technical Specific 's-requirements of this Technical ECCS subsystem is assumed to fait one (e g., a m re stringent surveigianc..

Specification in Mode 3 are applicable train of HPSI will be available to inject "9 **"

only if the pressurizer pressure is equal borated water into the RCS during an in this case, the proposed change to or greater 'han 1750 psia. The SLB. As described in the safety analysis similar i Example (ii)in that it proposed chan a vill add a note to the for Cycle 2. borated water (from HPSI)is e nstitutes an additional restriction D e..

Mode 3 applic.. oy statement that will required to mitigate tha reactivity RCS temperature) that must be satisfied require both ECCS subsystems to be before it is acceptable to have only one transient associated with the RCS operable any time the RCS average cooldown and prevent the core from . ECCS subsystem in service.

temperature is equal to or greater than returing to a critical condition. Below The staff has reviewed the hcensee,s 500* F regardless of the pressurizer n significant hazards consideration pressure. 500' F the RCS cooldown (and associated reactivity transienti during anahsis. Based on W.e new ad Technical Specification 3.5.3 currently the SLB is less severe and HPSI flow is above discussions, the staff proposes to requires one ECCS subsystem to be not required to maintain the core determine that the proposed change operable if the reactor is in Modes 3 and subcritical Therefore, since the does not mvohe a significant hazards 4 with a Mode 3 requirement that the proposed change reduces the consideration.

pressurizer pressure is less than 1750 consequences of a SLB it will not Locc/ Public Document Room psia.The proposed change to this involve a significant increase in the Location: University of New Orleans Technical Specification is similar to the Library. Louisianc Collection. Lakefront.

probability or consequences of any proposed change to Technical accident previously evaluated. New Orleans Louisiana 70122 Specification 3.5.2 in that a note will be (2) The proposed change does not Attorneyforlicensee Bruce W.

added to the Mode 3 applicability involve any physical changes to plant Churchill Esq., Shaw. Pittman Potts and statement that requires the RCS average systems. structures or components nor Trowbridge,2300 N St., NW.,

temperature to be less than 500' F before will there be any significant changes to Washington. DC 20037 it is acceptable to have only one ECCS plant operating procedures. The NRC Project Director: Jose A. Calvo subs) stem in sersice. proposed change will simply clarify the The reason for the proposed change to RCS conditions which must exist prior Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.

these Technical Speedications is to to taking one of the ECCS subsystems Docket No. 50-410. Nine Mile Point ensure that at least one train of high out of service. Thus, the proposed Nuclear Station. Unit No. 2. Scriba. New pressure safety injection (HPSI)is y04 change will not create the possibility of availaMi(esen if a single failure is a new or different kind of accident from Date of amendment request:

assumed) to mitigate the consequences any accident previously evaluated. November 16.1987 of a postulated steam line break (SLB) (3) The intent of this Specification is Description of amendment request:

accident initiated from an RCS average to ensure there will be sufficient The proposed amendment would revise temperature of 500' F or greater. The emergency core cooling capability Cycle 2 safety analy sis has shown that the allowable value and isolation trip available in the event of a LOCA and a setpoints for the reactor core isolation borated water from HPSIis required to coincident single failure that results in cooling (RCIC) high steam kne flow. As l l

f l

830 Federal Regitster / Vol. 53, No. B / Wednesday, January 13. 1988 J Noti::es noted in the lechnical Specifrattons, counposense are mot chaneard in a sus" the chlorine detection sysicm will n01 the emting values are prehmmary with not preeicesty amssed in s=miary. the increase the consequences of any event.

the actual s alaes to be determined proposed cha uste das azot crease the

2. Create the possibility of a new or during the startup test program.The propred changas are based on 1rystem Pj' *"',*

,n p, j ",'j f ,\"[ different kind of acadent frcm any The proposed cbsipes will nas insolse a previously analyzed.nere are no testtog dunng the startup test program, sigruLcant seAction an a marpn af saleJy 1a, changes in the way the pknt is The proposed amendment is in the foUoming masons: operated. No new failure modes are accordance with the hcensee's The proposed change m!1 not cause introduced.

appbcanon d November 16.1957. existing Technica1 Specification operational 3. Involve a significant reduction in a Basis forpropmed no signifront hmit6 or system performance crrterts to tw ma rgm of sefety. Centrol room hozords mnsideruf et determination: e sceeded. The proposed change erreires that habitability is not e&cted because on.

The Commission has provided thuystm deegn meirmes em r"* site chlorme bdk etorage has ten standards for detennining whether a AHowances Somnaemet dnfmuwns eliminated. the number of chlonne rail, i

significant hazards consideration exists '

j, as ctaied in % CHL 50 92. A proposed

[cu ens s truck, and barge shipments does not section B2/4.12 of the Techancel exceed 'he levels discussed in amendment to en operating beense for a Specdaam Theidae the proproed Regel.atory G ide 1.78, and the credibla facihty involves no significant hazards change does not result in a saquufiant off. site dlorme bulk storage facilities considerations if operation of the f acility reduction an a reargin of safety. are at taast 5 mdes distant from the site.

in accordersce with a proposed Based upon fbeabove cnnsiderations. The Isroposed diaetnes do not affect the amendment would not:(1) ins olve a the staff proposes to determine that the cnnsequeaxs of any aw.ident significant increase in the probabiit ty or proposad changes do not constitute a previciusly analysed.

consegnences d an accident previously significed hazards consideration. The staf.f has redewed the hcensee's evaluated. or (2) create the possibility of f.,.aca/ Public Document Room sebmittaland concurs with its reo a new or diWerent kind d actident from locahon: PenfieJd Library. State sigaaficant harards deteruina tion.

any eccident previously evahwed; or (3) University College. Oswego. New York Locn/ Aublic Document Room insolve a significant reduction in a 131 S. /occuan: Waterford Public LibraryA9 margin of safety. Attorney for /.censee: Mr. Mark Rope Ferry Road. WateriorL The proposed changes mill not irrvolve Wetterhakn. F4q, Conner & Connecticut 06385 I a sigm6 cant increase en the probabibty Wetterhahn. Suite 1050.1747 or consequences of an accxdent Atroencyfor ficensee:Guald Garfield. I Pennsylvania Avenue.NW- Esamre. Day Betty and Howard. One previously evaluated for the fdlowin8 Washington. DC 20006. Constitution Plaza.liertford, reasons: NRCProjectDirector Robert A. Connecticut 06103-3999.

as e ha h t[m I iso Capea. Diredor when the NRC Profect Director- }ohn F. Stolz gleani Cow redche4 Joo% of ra ted stearn fbw. Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et This charige to the TechnicalSperafiala NOTICE OFISSUANCE OF assures that the as-built plant is in agreement al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Nuclear AMENDMENT TO FAC11ITY Power Station, Unit No.3, New tendan OPERATING UCENSE with1he design basis Rensing the setpoict to g ggg g the wbm+t cendrtior's equnslent to the 7Jo%

During the perted Srnee publication of rated fbw v elue esvures that e ROC steam hne break will be detectad and isdated so Date o/casendnrent request; the last biweekly notice, the acmjance wadi the manersents of GDC 54 December 4. W67 Comn6ssion has issued the followmg I withcut vapac. tang the quakficataon or Descrrption of crmmdment regwest; amendments.He Commission has '

operaImn of other safer) systems er safe The amendment would revise Technical determined for each of these shutdown of the p! ant.The new setpoint is Specificaticm Section 3/4.3.t to detete amendments that the application I ccmservartve relatire to the old serpoir.t In the dlorine detection 1rystem. The complies with the standards and summuy. thn charyte will not mvohe a l chlorination systems at Millsitme Unit requirements of the Atomic Energy Act  ;

significant inerme en she pmbaWsMy or Nos.1,2 and 3 have been modified to

1. of1954.as arr. ended (the Act) and the

,])uhnces f an accident previoudy use sodium hypochlorite instead of Commission's rules and regulations. The The propowd c.hangea mil not treak the gaseous chlorme. This has resulted in Commission has made appropriate posstbaty or a new or differenJ Lod of the elimination of on-site bulk storage of findings as required by the Act and the occident presiou.sjy evaluated for the liquid chlorine and the possibihty of an Commission's rules and regulations in 10 following reasons- on site chletine rebse. CFR Chapter 1.which are set forth m the The reador bundma res7ensno previemsiy Basis ferpreposedno significant license amendment.

G**k**d** **** "*'*****'%

presiously assessed betts W temperature mod howrds considerction deterrnination:1n Notice af Consideration ofissuance of accordance with 1D CFR 50S2, the Amendment 1o Facility Operating

[n'3c,'I,7",$' b N licensee has reviewed the proposed License and Proposed No Sign 3ficant apphrable design hits. Thus, system and changes and has concluded that the Hazards Consideration Determination componest per(asmance is act adsersely amendment does not involve a and Opportunity for 11 earing in affected by One %e thmeeby naarug that significant hazards consideration connection with inese actions was t he desyn cape hibtaes al thcae syssense and because the change would not: published in the Federal Register as cornpanents are not challenged in a menser L Involve a significant increase in the indicateANo request for a hearing or not previously assessed so as to create the possibihty of a new or efkare tied of probability et consequences of an petition forleave to Intervene was filed accident previously analyzed.The following this notice.

I tion siam the des'ero bs = for ROC potential fora chloriae release affecting ttaleas,otherwise indicated. the s tem v.nLima has not chaws abs control room habitabibly nolanger Commission has deterrnmed that these enviranroenul gushLcat)ca of plaat exists since the chlorine rail cars have amendments satisfy the criteria for equipment is not adversely affected by this been removed from the Millstone site. categorical exchion in accordance proposed ame idment. furiber assunog that Thus, removal of the regiirements on with 10 CFR 51n Therefore, pursuant

Fedoes) Regletoe / Vcl. 53, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 1988 / Notices 831 to 10 CFR 51.22(b). no environmental Carolina Power & Usht Company, et al., 301 City Hall Drive. Bexley. Georgf a impact stMement or environmental Docket Nos. 50 338 and 86 334, 31513 aseesement need be prepared for these Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unita 1 amendments,if the Cornmission has and 2. Brunswick County, Noeth Indiana and Michigan Power Company, prepared an environmental assessment Carolina Docket Nos. 50 315 and 50 318. Donald der th  ! C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.1 and ovision in C . 2(b) a has january 1987 made a determinetton bened on that Description ofomendments:Thesc Date ofopphcouan for amendments '

, assessment. lt le so indicated.

amendments revise the Technical knuq 9.1987 For further detalls with respect to the Specifications to incorporate edditional action see (1) the applications for action steps describing steps operators amen [mante revised the Technical 8'I' des amendments,(2) the amendrnents, and should take if core flow and power do Specifications by tieleung the prosision (3) the Commission's misted letters, not meet the definition of recirculation that the auxiliary building crane main Safety Evaluations and/or system operability and to change the hoist be dunng! ed and the load blocks Environmental Assessments as surveillance requirements to require that unloaded whenever the crane is moved Indicated. All of then items are baseline average power range monitor over the spent fuel assemblies in the E'OM#f2"ro*Se"an'n. @"j'/v'MabiYehanU *h'"f/l>$"cs f,c , . ,, ';gb"'A?-

o

, g 1717 H Street, NW., Washingion, DC,

and at the local public document rooma Date fi uonm December 30.1947 imendmenI Nos.:113 and 98.

for the particular facilities involved. A Effectjyy gage; pecember so,1ggy Facility Operating License Nos. DPh.

copy of items (2) and (3) may be Amendments Nos.: 114 and 141 33 andDPR.N. Amendments revised the racility Operating L/ cense Nos. DPR. Technical Speciflestions.

obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 71ondDPR.42. Amendrnents revise the Date ofiniticinotice in Federal Washington, DC 20535. Attention: Technical Specifications. Register:lanuary 28.1987 (52 FR 2883)

Dole ofiniuolnotice /n Federal The Commission's related evaluation of Director. Division of Reactor Projects.

Registar: June 17,1987 (52 FR 23097) The the amendments is contained in a Safety Carolina Power a Ught Company, Commission's related evaluation of the Evaluation dated December 17,1987 Dockets Nos. 50-323 and 50 334, amendment is contained in a Safety No 8/thif' Cont hCtotd8 COM8/d'follon Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 Evaluation dated December 30.1987. comments received: No, and 2. Brunswick County, North No significont hozords consideration LocalPublic Document Room Carollna comments received: No. location: Maude Pteston Palenske Date of applicolion for omendments: LocalPublic Document Room Memottal Ubrary 500 Market Street, St.

location: University of North Carolina at Joseph. Michigan 49085

" P 'd Wilmington, Wham Madison Randall obe 15, Indiana and Michigan Power Company, Brief description of omendments: The mg r 1 a 28403 3297, Nort a n n!'t o 2,B rren amendment relocates a footnote from item 1.c.1 of Table 3.3.21 to item 1.c.1 of Gwgle Pown Company, Oglethorpe County, Michigan Table 4.3.21, thereby ensuring that the Power Corporation Municipal Electric Date of application for amendment required surveillance testing of Autho4 of Gwgla, Ch of Dahon, October 2& 1987 mechanical pumps is identified. Georska, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50 688, Brief deser/ption of omendment N Date ofinuance Decembu 30,1967 dwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Unha 1 amendment revised the provlsions in the en 2. Appling County Georgia Technical Specifications to extend 18 Effect/re doter December 30.1987 Data of appliccuan for amendmente: month surraillancas from December 31.

Amendments Nos. its and 142 October s.1s87 1987 to the refueling cutage currently facility Operating License Nos. DPR-Brief descripuan of amendments:M schedulsd to begin in early 1988 for 71 ondDPR.62. Arnendment revises the asiendments modify the Technical response time lasting for reactor trip Technical Specifications.

Specifications defining fuel Averaga and engineering safety features (EST)

Date ofinitiolnotim /n Fedwal Planar unear Heat Genera tion Rate instrumentation: response testing of Reglsten January 29.1986 ($1 FR 371c) limits and Emergency Core Cooling equipment to ESF signals: reactor vessel The Commission's related evaluation of System surveillance requirements. level indjestion calibration; auxl!!ary the amendment is contained in a Safety Date of /ssvonce December 21,1ge7 feedwater system testing. Including ,

Evaluation dated December 30,1987, Effecuve dola: December 21,1987 channel functional testing of loss of

• l No sigtuficcat Aczards considerouon AmndmeW Nos.t 150 and 87 main feedwater pump signal; and diesel comments received: No. Facil Operating Liconee Nos. DPR. generator testing. Including relief valve W October 15,1987 letter proWded #.# nes revloed the e n and essential service water valve g,e h4[ men corrected technical specificatson pages that d4d not change the initial Date ofinitialnouco ln Wedeeal Date ofisevance: December 28.1987 Register: Novamber 18,1987 ($2 FR Effecuve doter December 28.1987 determination of no significant hasards consideration as pubhohed in the 44244)N Comin! sfon's related Amendment No.:97 Federal Register, evaluation of the emendments is facility Operating License No. DPR.

contained in a Safety Evaluat!on dated rt Amendment revised the Technical LocalPublic Document Room December 21,19lt3. SpecLfications.

location: University of North Carolina at No significant haecide considerouon Wilmington. Wlfilam Madison Randall Date ofinitialnotice in Federal comments recs / red' No Reg 6eten November 27,1987 ($2 FR Library. 801 S. College Road. LocoIPublic Docuseent Room 48413) The Commission's related Wilmington North Carehne 28403 3297. locotion AppDng County Pubhc Ubrary, evaluation of the amendments is

832 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 1988 / Notices contained iri a Safety Evaluation dated No significant hazards consideration Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power December 28.1987. comments received: No Corporation. Docket No. 50-271.

No significant hazards considemtion LocalPublic Document Room Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, comments received: No. The proposed location: Hinds Junior College. Vernon. Vermont amendment was noticed with an McLendon Library Raymond.

opportunity for prior hearing. Date of apphmhon for omendment Mississippi 39154 LocalPublic Document Room Ianuary 16.1987 location:Maude Preston Palenske Nebraska Public Power District. Docket Brief Description of amendment: The Memorial Library. 500 Market Street. St. No. 50-296, Cooper Nuclear Station, loseph. Michigan 49085 amendment changes Technical Nemaba County, Nebrasia Specifications to clarify and enhance Mississippi Power & IJght Company, lim t ng conditions of operation and

• System Energy Resources, Inc., South Date of amendment request: October surveillance requirements pertaining to Mississippi Electric Power Association, 20. W

. the standby liquid control systein.

Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Brief description of amendment:The Station, Unit 1. Claiborne County' amendment changed the Techmcal Date ofissuance: December 30.1987 Mississippi Specifications relating to design features Effective date: 30 days from date of of the fuel storage facilities. issuance Dates of applications for amendment:

October 17,1986 and August 6.1987' as Date ofissuance: December 21,1987. Amendment No :102 supplemented December 15,1987. Effective dote: December 21,1987. Foci //ty Operating License No. DPR-Brief description of amendment:The Amendment No.: 113 20' Amendment revised the Technical August 6,1987 application for license Focility Operating License No. DPR. SpectMon amendment requested changes to the , 46. Amendment revised the Technical Technical Specifications (TS). Appendix Date ofinitio/ notice in Federal Specifications. Register: March'12,1987 (52 FR 7700)

A to the operating license,in eight areas:

Date ofinitia/ notice in Federal The Commission's related evaluation of (1) a clarification to the definition of secondary containment integrity; (2) a Register: November 18,1987 (52 FR the amendment is contained in a Safety change in the name of a supporting 44246). The Commission's related Evaluation dated December 30.1987.

organization represented on th . Safety evaluation of the amendment is No significar:t hozords considention Review Committee:(3) a nomenclature contained in a Safety Evaluation dated comments received: No.

change for a secondary containment December 21,1987.

isolation valve;(4) deletion of the No significant hazards considerat:.on LocalPublic Document Room manualinitiation handswitch comments received. No. location: Brooks Memorial Library, 224 cahbration requirement for ECCS Loca/ Public Document Room Main Street. Brattleboro. Vermont 05301.

pumps: (5) deletion of expired footnotes: location: Auburn Public Library,118 (6) a change to reflect new upper Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 15th Street. Auburn. Nebraska 68305. .

containment pool gates:(7) a change to Corporation, Docket No. 50-271, add certain smoke detectors; and (8) a Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, modification to the setpoint for residual al., Docket No. 50-245, Millstone Nuclear Vernon, Vermont heat removal (RHR)/ reactor core Power Station, Unit No.1, New London isolation cooling (RCIC) steam line high County, Connecticut &teof pplicationforamendment flow. These changes are made in this April 28,1987 as clarified by letter dated amendment. The October 17,1988 Date of application for amendment: November 2.1987.

application for license amendment October 20,1987 requested four changes to the TS. Three Brief Description of amendment: This Brief description of amendment:To amendment revises the Technical of the changes were made in reflect deletion of low reactor pressure Amendment 29 to the operating license.

Specifications to reflect administrative l issued March 31,1987. The fourth permissive switches from the emergency changes to Section 6 of the Technical core cooling system (core spray and low I requested change. the addition of TS for Specifications. I pressure coolant injection) pump start '

smoke detectors in the control rod drive logic. Date ofissuance: December 29,1987 repair room, is made in Otis amendment. e ec m k 29. M87 Date ofissuance: December 17,1987 #fec Date ofissuance: December 30.1987 Amendment No.:101 Effective date: December 30,1987 Effective date: December 17,1987 Amendment Nc. 42 Amendment No.: 13 yy Facility Operating License No. NPF. Facility Operating License No. DPR' 28: Amendment revised the Technical

29. This amendment revises the 21. Amendment revised the Technical SP' ificati "

Technical Specifications and the Specifications. Date ofinitio/ notice in Federal Environmental Protection Plan. Register: September 23,1987 (52 FR Dates ofimtialnotice in Federal Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register: November 13,1987 (52 FR 35808) and renoticed on November 18.

Register: September 23,1987 (52 FR 43694). The Commission's related 1987 (52 FR 44247). The Commission's 35796) The December 15.1987 letter provided supplemental information evaluation of the arnendment is related evaluation of the amendment is which did not change the imtlal contained in a Safety Evaluation dated contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 17,1987 December 29,1987 o s$ations as pu l d in e No significant hazards consideration No significant hazards consideration Federal Register. The Commission's comments received: No. comments received: No.

related evaluation of the amendme:.t is LocalPublic Document Room LocalPublic Document Room contained in a Safety Evaluation dated location: Waterford Public Library, Rope location: Brooks Memorial Library,224 December 30.1987. Ferry Road. Waterford, ConnectW . Main Street, Brattleboro, Vermont 05301.

l i

Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. a / Wednesday, January 13, 1988 / Notices 833 l

l 1

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF comment. If comments have been Practice for Domestic Licensing 1 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY requested, it is so stated. In either event, Proceedings"in 10 CFR Part 2. If a OPERATING 1lCENSE AND FINAL the State has been consulted by request for a hearing or petition for

! DETERMINA'110N OF NO telephone whenever possible. leave to intervene is filed by the above SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS Under its regulations, the Commission date, the Commission or an Atomic CONSIDERATION AND may issue and make an amendment Safety and Licensing Board, designated OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING immediately effective. notwithstanding by the Commission or by the Chairman (EXIGENT OR EMERGENCY the pendency before it of a request for a of the Atomic Safety and Licensing CIRCUMSTANCES) hearing from any person, in advance of Board Panel, will rule on the request I During the period since publication of the holding and completion of any and/or petition and the Secretary or the

. the last biweekly notice the required hearing. where it has designated Atomic Safety and Licent,ing '

Commission has issued the following determined that no significant hazards Board willissue a notice of hearing or amendments.The Commission has consideration is involved. an appropriate order.

determined for each of these The Commission has applied the As required by 10 CFR 2.714. a amendments that the application for the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 mad has made petition for leave to intervene shall set amendment complies with the standards a final determination that r a forth with particularity the interest of and requirements of the Atomic Energy amendment involves no significant the petitioner in the proceeding and how Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and hazards consideration. The basis for this that interest may be affected by the the Commission's rules and regulations. determination is contained in the results of the proceeding. The petition The Commission has made appropriate documents related to this action. should specifically explain the reasons findings as required by the Act and the Accordingly, the amendments have been why intervention should be permitted Commission's rules and regulations in 10 issued and made effective as indicated. w th particular reference to the CFR Chapter 1, which are cet forth in the Unless otherwise indicated, the following factors:(1) the nature of the license amendment. Commission has determined that these petitioner's nght under the Act to be Because of exigent or emergency amendments satisfy the criteria for made a party to the proceeding:(2) the circumstances associated with the date categorical exclusion in accordance nature and extent of the petitioner's the amendment was needed, there was with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant property, financial, or other interest in not time for the Commission to publish, to 10 CFR 51.22(b). no environmental the proceeding and (3) the possible for public comment before issuance, its impact statement or environmental effect of any order which may be usual 30-day Notice of Consideration of assessment need be prepared for these entered in the proceeding on the issuance of Amendment and , Proposed amendments.lf the Commission has petitioner's interest. The petition should No Significant Hazards Consideration prepared an environmental assessment also identify the specific aspect (s) of the Determination and Opportunity for under the special circumstances subject matter of the proceeding as to Hearing. For exigent circumstances, the provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Commission has either issued a Federal made a determination based on that Any person who has filed a petition for Register notice providing opportunity for assessment. it is so indicated. leave to intervene or who has been public comment or has used local media For further details with respect to the admitted as a party may amend the to provide notice to the pubhc m the action see (1) the application for pet tion without requesting leave of the area surrounding a licensee's facility of amendment. (2) the amendmer.t t Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the the licensee's application and of the Facility Operating lacense, and (3) the first prehearing conference scheduled in Commission's proposed determination Commission's related letter, Safety the proceeding but such an amended of no sigmficant hazards consideration. Evaluation and/or Environmental atisfy the speci icity Assessment, as indicated. All of these peti , n The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for the public to items are available for public inspection r9 at the Commission's Public Document Not later than ftfteen (15) days prior to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the public means of Room.1717 H Street, NW., Washington, the first prehearing conference communication for the public to respond DC, and at the local public document scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner quickly, and in the case of telephone room for the particular facility involved. shall file a supplement to the petition to comments, the comments have been A copy of items (2) and (3) may be intervene which must include a list of recorded or transcribed as appropriate obtained upon request addressed to the the contentions which are sought to be and the licensee has been informed of U.S. Nucleer Regulatory Commis6cn, litigated in the matter, and the bases for the public comments. Washington.DC 20555, Attention: each contention set forth with j

, in circumstances where failure to act Director, Division of Reactor Projects. reasonable specificity. Contentions shall in a timely way would have resulted, for The Commission is also offering an be limited to matters within the scope of example,in derating or shutdown of a opportunity for a hearing with respect to the amendment under consideration. A nuclear power plant or in prevention of the issuance of the amendments. By petitioner who fails to file such a either resumption of operation or of February 12,1988, the hcensee may file supplement which satisfies these increase in power output up to the a request for a hearing with respect to requirements with respect to at least one plant's licensed power level, the issuance of the amendment to the contention will not be permitted to Commission may not have had an subject facility operating license and participate as a party.

opportunity to provide for public any person whose interest may be Those permitted to intervene become comment on its no significant hazards affected by this proceeding and who parties to the proceeding, subject to any determination. In such case, the license wishes to participate as a party in the limitations in the order granting leave to amendment has been issued without proceeding must file a written petition intervene, and have the opportunity to l opportunity for comment. lf there has for leave to intervene. Requests for a participate fully in the conduct of the been sorne time for public comment but hearing and petitions for leave to hearing, including the opportunity to  ;

less than 30 days, the Commission may intervene shall be filed in accordance present evidence and cross-examine .

provide an opportunity for public with the Commission's "Rules of witnesses.

l

8_34 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 1988 / Notices Since the Commission has made a Ef/ective date: December 30,1987 hnal determination that the amendment Amendment No. 41 involves no significant hasards facility Operating License No. NPF.

consideration,if a h.aring is requested, 29:Thl amendment revises the it will not stay the effectiveness of the Technical Specifications.

amendment. Any hesting held would take place while the amendment is in Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal Register: December 4.1987 (52 FR 48138) quest for a hearing or a petition The Commission's related evaluation of .

for leave to intervene must be filed with the amendment, finding of emergency the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. circumstances, and final determination Nuclear Regulatory Commission, of no significant hazards consideration Washington, DC 20555. Attention: are contained in a Safety Evaluation ,

Docketing and Service Branch, or may dated December 30,1987, be delivered to the Commission's Public No significant hozords consideration Document Room,1717 H Street, NW., comment received: No Washington, DC, by the above date.

Loco /Public Document Room Where petitions are filed during the last location Hinds Junior College, ten (10) days of the notice period,it is McLendon Ubrary, Raymond, requested that the petitioner promptly so Mississippi 39154.

Inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at (800) Nebraska Public Power District, Docket 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-0700). No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station.

The Western Union operator should be Nemaha County, Nebraska given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message Date of amendment request:

addressed Io (Project Director): December 21,1987.

petitioner's name and telephone Briefdescription of amendment:The number; date petition was mailed: plant amendment changed the Technical name: and publication date and page Specifications to extend the secondary number of this Federal Register notice. containment isolation logic functional A copy of the petition should also be test interval from six months to eighteen sent to the Office of the General months.

Counsel.Bethesda U.S. Nuclear Date ofissuance: December 22,1987 Regulatory Commission. Washington, C2 $5, and to the attorney for the Effectiredate December 22,1987, Amendment No.:114 Nontimely filings of petitions for leave Facility Operating License No. DPR.

to intervene, amended petitions. 46. Amendment revised the Technical supplemental petitions and/or requests Specifications. Public comments for hearirig will not be entertained requested as to proposed no significant absent a determination by the hazards consideration: No.

Commission, the presiding oft.cer or the The Commission's related evaluation Atomic the petitionSafety and/or andrequest Ucensing Board, should be that of the amendment, finding of emergency granted based upon a balancing of the circumstances consultation with State factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i). of Nebraska and final determination of no significant hazards consideration are tv) and 2.714(d).

contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Mlesissippi Power & Ught Company, December 22,1987, System Energy Resources,Inc., South At.orneyforlicensee Mr. G, D.

Mississippi Electric Power Association, Watson, Nebraaka Public Power Docket No. 50-418, Grand Gulf Nuclear District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus.

Station, Unit 1, Clr.iborne County, Nebraska 68601 Ml**\**\PPI LocalPublic Document Room .

Dates of opplication for amendment: location: Auburn Public Ubrary,118 August 13,1987, as revised October 23, 15th Street, Auburn, Nebraska 66305.

November 25 December 22, and NRCProfect Director: Jose A.Calvo December 27.1987 Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 7th Brief description ofomendment:The day of lanuary 1988, amendment provides interim changes to the Technical Specifications for the pofg3,gyof,,7g,ggfafory com,j,,fon standby liquid control system and the ATWS recirculation pump trip system to stem A.varse, reflect modifications made to conform to Director. Division of Reoctor Pr>jects.1/II.

to CFR 50.82 regarding anticipated office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation.

transients without scram (ATWS). l Doc.88-523 Filed t 12-88; 6:45 aml Do'e ofissuance: December 30.1987 a n o coot 1soom e l

\ .

, _ ___ _ _ -__