ML20155B391

Discusses Whether Predominant Basis Used in Sholly Notices for Concluding NSHC Is Example That Proposed Amend Involves Addl Limitation or Restriction

ML20155B391
Person / Time
Site:	05000000
Issue date:	03/21/1985
From:	Scinto J NRC
To:	Olmstead B NRC
Shared Package
ML20150F521	List: ML20150F948 ML20150F999 ML20151B441 ML20151C135 ML20151E096 ML20151H083 ML20151H215 ML20151H792 ML20151H796 ML20151H923 ML20151H945 ML20151J034 ML20151K729 ML20151K824 ML20151K921 ML20151K924 ML20151L082 ML20151L310 ML20151L359 ML20154M312 ML20155B192 ML20155B196 ML20155B200 ML20155B205 ML20155B208 ML20155B391 ML20155B456 ML20155B483 ML20155B495 ML20155B576 ML20155B608 ML20155B613 ML20155B684 ML20155B699 ML20155B720 ML20155B861 ML20155B976 ML20155C010 ML20155C048 ML20155C076 ML20155C109 ML20155C161 ML20155C169 ML20155C189 ML20155C196 ML20155C201 ML20155C206 ML20155C214 ML20155C254 ML20155C258 ... further results
References
FRN-45FR20491, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50 AA61-2-046, AA61-2-46, NUDOCS 8604160134
Download: ML20155B391 (49)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:/Ahl-3 POR Note to Bill Olmstead 3/21/85 From Joe' Scinto Re: Sholly Notices In connection with a question concerning whether amendment " increasing safety" were being deterred by the Sholly notice process, I indicated my skepticism. As we discussed, it was my feeling (and Joe Gray's) that the predominant basis used in Sholly notices for concluding No Significant Hazards Considerations is example (ii) that the proposed amendment involves an addi:ic ul limitation or restriction. I felt that the other principal bases were e< ample (i) minor administrative or error correction changes ard (vi) that the action may in some way reduce a margin of safety but was within the SRP criteria. I checked the February 85 Sholly notice to verify whether my " feelings" were correct. The results are as follows: Number of Bases

• relying on example (ii), additional restrictions 39 Number relying on example (i), purely administrative 20 Number relying en example (vi), reduction in margin within SRP 12 Other (relying on other examples or the 3 factor test) 27 I have referred to Bases rather than changes since many notices have i

multiple changes some related, some unrelated. In some cases a separate basis is set out for each change, in others a single basis is given for j a number of changes. It should also be noted that for some of the "other" grcup the explanation Irakes it clear that the reviewer believed the change ] to be more restrictive, but they did not rely on example (ii). l. l 8604160134 e60327 NSF 0491 PDR

- ;2 /p. t, 2., r)G. b/Lb., ' uuoamt WUM-% \\ i Feder:1 Regist:r / Vol. 50,' No. 39 / Wednesd;y. F.bru~.ry 27, 1985 / Notices 7979 1 Us. Conditions copies of whichanay be operating license upon a determination Safety and ucenalng Board, designated a requested from the NSF Forrns and by the Commission that such by the Commission or by the Chairman Pubhcations Unit, amendment involves no significant of the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Because of the nature of some hazards consideration. notwithstanding Board Panel, will mle on the request , precollege projects, proposers may wish the pendency before the Commission of and/or petition and the Secretary or the g to familiarize thamselves with NSF a request for a hearing from any person. designated Atomic Safety and Ucensing policy in two partieglar areas: This monthly notice includes all Board willissue a notice of hearing or

• Where educational materials are amendments issued. or proposed to be an appropriate order.

~, outcomes, the GSER,should be consulted issued. since the date of publication of As required by to CFR 2.714. a - e with respect to inveptions software, and the last monthly notice which was petition for leave to intervene shall set copyrights. published on January 23.1985 (50 FR forth with particularity the interest of

• Where precoUege students are to be 3047) through Febmary 15,1985, the petitioner in the proceeding. and involved m research or in the development of materials. awards are NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF how that interest may be affected by the subject to the provisions of 42 U.S.C.

ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO results of the proceeding.Thepetition 1869 (a) and (b) ( Myers Amendment,. FAC11JIY OPERATING IJCENSE AND should specifically explain the reasons - PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT why intervention should be permitted and Dornan Amendment ).These IIAZARDS CONSIDERATION with particular reference to the provisions oflaw require appropriate DETERMINATION AND following factors:(1) He natv[e of the et grantee coordination with parents. OPPORTUNITY FOR llEARING petitioner's right under the Act to be guardians, and school district officials. } The awardee is wholly responsible for The Commission has made a proposed made a party to the proceeding:(2) the the conduct of the project. including the determination that the following nature and extent of the petitioner's 1 research and development of materials ame,ndmant requests involve no property, financial, or other interest in 3 and the preparation of project results for significant hazards consideration. Under the proceeding: and (3) the possible B publication. The Foundation does not the Commission s regulations in 10 CFR effect of any order which may be assume responsibility for such findings 50.92 this means that operation of the entered in the proceeding en the or their interpretation, but expects an facility in accordance with the proposed petitioner's interest.The petition should acknowledgement ofits support in all amendments would not:(1) Involve a also identify the specific aspect (s) of the published materials resulting from - sign ficant increase in the probability or subject matter of the proceeding as to funding projects. consequences of an accident previously which petitioner wishes to intervene. 2 VI. Inquiries evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of Any person who has filed a petition for a new or different kind of accident from leave to intervene or who has been Questions not addressed in this any accident previously evaluated; or (3) admitted as a party may amend the publication may be directed to the NSF involve a significant reduction in a petition without requestingleave of the staff by writing to: margin of safety. The basis for this B ard up to Afteen (15) days prior to the { Division of Materials Development and proposed determination for each first prehearing conference scheduled in Research. Directorate for Science and amendment request is shown below. Ih' P.roceeding. but such an amended Engineering Education. National The Commission is seeking public petition must satisfy the specificity Science Foundation. Washington. D.C. comments on this proposed requirements described above. 1 20550. determination. Any comments received Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to ed Dated. February 22.1985. within 30 days after the date of the first prehearing conference I Alan I.14shner' publication of this notice will be scheduled in the proceeding. a petitioner considered in making any finaj shall file a supplement to the petition to e70p [ sfa determination. The Commission will not intervene which must include a list of in normally make a final determination the contentions which are sought to be (FR Doc. 85-4751 Fded 2-2r>45. 8 45 am) unless it receives a request for a litigated in the matter, and the bases for .sg } suo coonss5** hearing. each contention set forth with ,se Comments should be addressed to the reasonable specificity. Contentions shall NUCLEAR REGULATORY - Secretary of the Commission. U.S. be limited to matters within the scope of COMMISSION Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the amendment under consideration. A onthly Notice; Applications and Washington, D C. 20555. Attention: Petitioner who fails to file such a Amendments to Operating Licenses Docketing and Service Branch. supplement which satisfies these involving No Significant Hazar is By March 29.1985, the licensee may requirements with respect to at least one for Me a request for a hearing with respect contention will not be permitted to Considerations to issuance of the amendment to the participate as a party. I. Background subject facility operating license and Those permitted to intervene become g a Pursuant to Public Law (Pub. L) 97-any person whose interest may be parties to the proceeding, subject to any for 415. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission affected by this proceeding and who limitations in the order granting leave to (the Commission, is pub'ishing its wishes to participate as a part3 in the intervene, an i have the opportunity to a regular monthly notice. Pub. L 97-415 proceeding must file a written petition participate fully in the conduct of the revised section 189 of the Atomic Energy for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing, including the opportunity to Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), to hearing and petitions for leave to present evidence and cross-examine require the Commission to publish intervene shall be filed in accordance witnesses. notice of any amendments issued, or with the Commission's " Rules of If a hearing is requested the proposed to be issued, under a new Practice for Domestic Licensing Commission will make a final provision of section 189 of the Act.His Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. If a determinatien on the issue of no l'yd provision grants the Commission the request for a hearing or petition for significant hazard

• consideration. He authority to issue and make immediately leave to intervene is filed by the above final determinatio.. will serve to decide effective any amendment to an date, the Commission or an Atomic when the hearing is held.

__ 1W.'.; O

7980 Feder:1 Register / Vol 50. NL 39 / WIdnesdry. February 27.3985/ Notices If the final determination is that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is Example (ii) widch is a change thai emendment request involves no designated to rule on the petition and/or constitutes an additional limitation. 3 eignificant hazards consideration, the request, that the petitioner has made a restriction, or control not presently ( smmission may issue the amendment substantial showing of good cause for included in the Technical Specifications: .d make it immediately effective, the granting of a late petition and/or For example, a more strmgent notwithstanding the request for a request.That detennination will be surveillance requirement.ne proposed hearing. Any hearing held would take based upon a balanc.ing of the factors change of the Technical SpeciLcations place after issuance of the amendment. specified in to CFR 2.714{a)(1)(i)-{v]'and LCO to reduce the allowable oxygen If the final determination is that the 2.714(d). \\ concentrationlevelin primary amendment involves 4 s hazards consideration. a$nificant .- e For further details with respect to thisNeontainment constitutes an additE,nal c ny hearing held action see the application for limitation ~oriWant operation. that is would take place before the issuance of amendment which is available for public consistent with Example [d). any amendment. inspection at the Comumssion's Pubhc Since the amendment involves a Normally, the Commis on will not Document Room 1717 H Street. N.W, proposed change that is similar to an v issue the amendment umu the Washington. D.C., and at the !cce.! example for which no signifloant expiration of the 30-day notice period. public document room for the particular hazards considerations are likely to However, should circumstances change facility involved. during the notice period such that failure exist, the Commission has made a to act in a timely way would result.for Boston Edison Company. Docket No. 56-proposed determination that the exemple. la derating or shutdown of the 293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, application for amendment involeEs no facility, the-Commission may issue the Plymouth. Massachusetts significant hazards considerations. bcznse amendment before the Date ofomendment requese locoIPublic DocumentRoom expiration of the 30-day notice period. December 8.1964. location: Plymouth Public Library. North provided that its flnel determination is Descriptwn ofamendment mquest Street. Plymouth. Massachusetts 02380. that the amendment involves no The proposed amendment would change ,,,,,,,,y,, f;,,,,,,; y, g, g g,,,, sigmficant hazards consideration. He the Techmcal Specifications to reduce Esq., Boston Edison Company. 800 final determination will consider all the permitted oxygen concentration Boyiston Street. 36th Floor. Boston. pubh,c and State comments received leselin the primary containment from a gg before action is taken. Should the maximura of 5% to a maximum of 4%. NBmnMef: Domenic & Commission take this action,it will On May 8,1984. NRC issued Generic Vassallo. publish a notice of issuance and provide Letter 84-09 which concluded that for opportunity for a hearing after recombiner capability is not required in Carolina Power and Ught Company, Docket No. 5M81. IL B. Rohinaan issuance. De Commission expects that BWR plants with Mark Icontainment Steam Electric Plant. Unit No. 2 the need to take this action will occur for which notices on the construction Dar!Ington, South Carolina wy infrequently. permits were published before . request int a hearing or a petition November 5.1970. if certair. criteria Date ofamendmentrepese leave to.* vrvene must be filed with were met.%e criteria enumerated were September 19,1964. the Secretary of the Commission. U.S. as follows:(1) De plant has Technical Descriptionofamendmentiequest Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Specifications (limiting conditions for De proposed amendment would change _ Washington. D.C. 20555. Attention: operation. LCO) requiring that the the Technical 59ecifications frem Decketing and Service Branch, or may containment atmosphere be less than requiring the ev. lizing charge to be be delivered to the Commission's Public four percent oxygen when the Performed monthly to performing the Document Room.1717 H Street. N.W containment is required to be inerted, change annually. Changing the battery Washington. D.C.. by the above date. and (2) the plant has only nitrogen or charging requirements is consistent with , Where petitions are filed during the last recycled containment atmosphere for the manufacturer's recommended ten (10) days of the notice pe'iod. It is use in all pneumatic control syste us interval, reduces unnecessary requestM that the petitioner promptly so within containment. and (3) there <tre no overcharging of cells and does not in!orm ibe Commission by a toll-free potential sources of oxygen in degrade the overall operation of the 8 tIlephone call to Westem Union at (800) containment other than that resultmg batteries. %e' decreased frequency for 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700), from radiolysis of the reactor coolant. charging of the batteries improves the The Western Union operator should be The present Technical Specifications reliability of voltage sensitive equipment given Datagram Identification Number for Pilgrim Station provide that the on the same bus in that this equipment 3737 and the following message oxygen concentration level be less than (NBFD relays in reactor protection cddressed to fBranch Chief): Petitioner's 5% oxygen by volume in containment system) will be subjected to the voltage name and telephone number; date during reactor power operation. In order changes seen during charging less often. pztition was mailed: plant name: and to comply with the criteria in the The battery parameters will continue publication date and page number of Generic Letter the LCO for this to be measured on a monthly basis.%is this Federal Register notice. A copy of Technical Specification must be provides adequale indication of battery the petition should also be sent to the changed to a maximum of 4% oxygen by status and the ability to identify any Extcutive Legal Director. U.S. Nuclear volume. deterioration long before failure, as 3 Regulatory Commission. Washington. Bosisforproposedno significant discussed in the current ba:Is. { D.C. 20555, and to the attorney ior the hazards considention determination: Basisforproposedno significant lic:nsee. Le Commission has provided guidance hazards ccinidemtion determination: Nontimely filings of petitions'for leave concerning the application of standartis ne Commission has provided guidance to intervene, amended petitions, for determining whether license concerning the application ofits supplemental petitions and/or requests amendments involve significant hazards standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92 for ' - hzaring will not be entertained considerations by providing certain no significant hazards considerations by nt a determination by the examples (48 m 14870). One of those providing certain examples published in anission, the presiding officer or the not likely to involve such considerations the Federal Register on April 6.1983 (48 I ~

e Federal Register / Vd. So, No. 39 / Wedn;sd:y, Febntary 17, 1985 / Notices 7381 FR14B70). One of the examples of an Home and Fifth Avenues. Hartsvdle, concerning the application of the amendment which willlikely be foun South Carolina 29535. standards for determining whether a to not involve significant hazards Attorney forlicensee Shaw, Pittman. significant hazards consideration exists considerations is a change which may Potts, and Trowbridge,1800 M Street, by providing certain examples (46 FR reduce in some way a safety margin, but NW., Washm' gton. D.C. 20036. 14870).These examples of <.c'Ena where the results of the change are NRCBmnch Chief: Steven A. Varga. involving no significant hararda clearly within all acceptable criteria. Commonwealth Edison Company, consideration include:(1) A purely e attached proposed change falls Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad administrative change to the Technical wi higthe Commiuierf.s example ( f Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 Specifications, wrection of an enor or e a changapot hkely to ihvolve a and 2, Rock Island County,! linois a change in n menclature:(2) a change . significant' hazards coris3a that consititutes an additional d because the chaige-1sTn accordance Date of amendment request: February limitation, restriction, or control not with the manufacture's "/.1983, as supplemented August 23, presently included in the Technical Wi-recommendations, reduces unnecessary Specifications: and (3) a change to make &3Cri rion of amendment requestr a license conform to changes in the P overcharging and may improve the ,h.s sabmittal supplerr ents the request regulations, where the license change reliability of voltage sensitive equipment a on the same bus. fcr amendment dated February 17,1963 results in very minor changes to facility w h!ch was noticed in the Federal Therefore, on these bases, the operations in keeping with the v Commission proposes to determine that Registar on September 21,1983 (49 FR regulations. P the prop : sed change involves no 43132).The changes proposed by the ne changes proposed in the i significant hazards considerations. li;ensee reflected bcth organizational application for amendment are LocalPubhc Document Room c anges and changes necessitated by encompassed by these examples in the revisi ns t to CFR. Sections 50.54 and location: Hartsville Memorial 1.ibrary, following ways: Home and FJth Avenues, Hartsville, (1) Changes to the Technical ed e opera o a ffing Specifications have been proposed by l a a 29535. requirements, immediate notification the licensee to reflect the current Attorney for hcensee: Shaw, Pittman, requirements and the 1.icensee Event potts, and Trowbridge,1800 M Street, Reporting system, respectively, licensee organization by. changing the NW., Wa shington, D.C. 20036. The proposed amendment would titles for certam positions.These NRCBranch Chief: Steven A. Varga. incorporate numerous miscellaneous changes do not reflect a significant, j %. '.na Power and Light Company, changes to section 6. Adrninistrative change in the authority of the position. l Donet No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Controls, of the Technical saj are changes in_ nomenclature and Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Specifications.This section of the am sirailar to example (11 above. N 2TAnother change proposed shich )flects the curren,t organization is the Darlington, South Carolina Technical Specifications contains. /. re among other things, information and Date of amendment request descriptions concerning the licensee's'/ definition and description of a newly ,,anagement organization. The licensee created position Director of Nuclear j December 10,1964. Bescription of amendment request preposed to modify these specificati6ns Safety.This new position has defined i The proposed amendment would revise in several places to reflect the currekt Powers and authonty that exert Section 8. Administrative Controls, of licensee organizations at corporate ( additional control not presently in the ~ the Technical Specifications to: (1) headquarters and at the station.Thest Technical Specifications and is thus Change the position of Manager-changes are changes in title for exis similarjo example (2) abovq Operations and Maintenance from a positions and the addition of a new ,(3}'Another change is proposed that' single position to two positions; position, Director of Nuclear Safety. In 'nes the qualificatrions and/N Manager-Operations and Manager-addition, specifications in response to capa'biliiin.%d forthe position of N Maintenance: Reporting to the General an NRC requests are proposed to require radiation / chemical technician. These Manager as prior to change; and (2) procedures for the control of overtim,' qualifications and capabilities were not reinsert page 6.5-7 approved by for certain job classifications at the / previously defined in the Technical Amendment 64 but inadvertently station. The licensee also proposed to Specifications, so the change constitutes 3 deleted by Amendment 85. clarify the applicability of the an additional limitation, restriction, or Basis forproposedno significant requirement to conduct retraining at control not presently included therein hazards consideration determination: two. year intervals as a result of a and is thus similar to example (2) above. / The Commission lias provided guidance concern identified during an informal 4)_Other' changes are proposed ' haft concerning the application of the licensee audit.The licensee also clarify the requirerFEhflo condiscFx' sta.dards for determining whether a proposed changes to specify that / retraining at two-year intervals, thats significant hazards consideration exista emergency procedure drills shall be / specify that emergency procedure drillsN _ by providing certain examples (April 6. conducted at the frequency specified in shall be conducted at the frequency 1983,48 FR 14870). The proposed change the Generating Station Emergency Plan, called out in the Generating Station's to station organization and the and to require audits of the Facihty( Emergency Plan, and that require audits replacement of a previously approved Emergency Plan and Facility Security of the Facility Emergency Plan and organizational change that was deleted plan at lease once per twelve months. Facility Security Plan at least once per b) error during a subsequent These changes are in response to NRC 12 months. These changes constitute f araendmer.t are covered by example (i) requests. Finally, a proposed change additional limitations. restrictions or emce they are administrative in nature. would clarify job qualification controls not presently included in the / ; The staff, thirefore, proposes to requirements for the position of Technical Specifications, and are - ' determine tlat this amendment involves radiation / chemical technician. thereby similar to example {2} above. f 'o significarit hazards consideration. Basis forproposedno significant (5) Changes to requirements for i LocalPublic Document Room hazards consideration determination: minimum operator staffing. and location. Hartsville Memorial Library, The Commission has provided guidance immediate notification requirements, S l l llE

7982 Federal R;gi;ter / Vcl. 50 No. 39 / Wedn:sd:y, F;bru:ry 27, 1985 / Notices rnd changes to the Licensee Event ~ bearing control rods is sufficiently spurious actuation due to instrument /! Rrporting system are similar to example matched to ensure that their safety drift. Deletion of the b! weekly MSIV '3) above, since these are changes to function (scram reactivity)is not partial closure test requirement would [ ake a license conform to changes in reduced or compromised, not will the allow the closure to be tested monthly, 3 .se regulations, with minor changes to probabilities or consequences of consistent with the Standard" Technical ficility operations.. previously evaluated accidents be Specification requirement. Since each of the changes requested increased. by the licensee can be shown to be Bosisforpmposedno significant similar to an example of a kind of Based on the preceding discussion hozoids considemtion deterrninction and review of similar approved changes The licensee's submittal of November-change which will beccfsidered not r at another Commonwealth Edison Unit, hkely to involve a significant hazards Dresden Unit 3, the licensee concludes 27.1984 contained an evaluation of the consideration, the staff proposes to that the proposed amendments will not: proposed action and a basis for a determine that this proposed (1)Invohe a significant increase in proposed no significant hazards amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. the probability or consequences of an considen ation determination. He accider t previously evaluated, because licensee's proposed determination is LocalPublic DocumentRoom the use of hafnium metalin place of based on the following considerstions. location: Moline Public Library,504-boron carbide powder is to reduce the The Commissiorihas pFovide'd 17th Street. Moline, Illinois 61265. potential for corrosion and mechanical guidancefoncerning the application of. Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. Robert G. stress that would give rise to such theafandards for determining whether a. Fitzgibbons. Jr., Isham. Uncoln, a Beale, accidents. significant hazards consideratiefthists \\ Three First Na tional Plaza. Suite 5200, (2) Create the possibility of a new or by providing certain examples (48 FR Chicago. Illinois 60602. NRC Branch Chief: Domenic B. different kind of accident previously 14870).ne examples of actions k Vassallo. evaluated: the kinds of accidents which involving no significant hazards i can result from control rod malfunction consideration include:(vi) A change Commonwealth Edison Company, have instead been reduced by the use of which either results in some increase to Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad hafnium absorber materialin place of the probability or consequences of a c.nd 2. Rock Island County, Illinois boron carbide powder. previously analyzed accident or may Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 (3)Inv Ive a sigmficant reduction in \\ reduce in some way a safety margin, but Dateofamendmentrequest October the margin of safety: the hafnium \\where the results of the change are 2,1984. absorber will provide neutron clearly within all acceptable crite ' Description ofamendment request: absorption characteristics that do not g.ith respect to the system or e onent ihed' th{S The submittal requests changes in the differ significantly from the provided by sp d rd Plan. Technical Specifications for Quad Cities the boron r:arbide powder currently p pa the requested changes. An increase of used'e staff has reviewed the licensee's the high drywellpressure to 2.5 psig and " nits 1 and 2 to permit the use of n 'nium neutron absorber material in

control rod assemblies. This change significant hazards consideration deletion of the bi weekly MSIV testing is will allow NRC-approved state-of-the-determination. The staff finds that the a relaxation of the current Technical art control rod designs, using other than criteria for a no significant hazards Specification limits and therefore, may boron carbide neutron absorber consideration as set forth in 10 CFR be considered as a reduction of an material, to be used in these units.

50.90 are met. He staff has, therefore, existing safety margin. However, both. Basisforproposedno significant made a proposed determination that the proposed revisions still comply with the hazards considemtion determination: proposed amendment involves no staffs general guidance on the drywell The licensee's submittal of October 2. significant hazards consideration. pressure set point and MSIV testing as 1984 contained an evaluation of the LocalPublicDocumentRoom described below. proposed action and a basis for a locotion: Moline Public Library, 504-in the case of the proposed 2.5 psig set proposed no significant hazards 17th Street Illinois 61265. point, the increase is requested in order consideration determination. The Attorneyforlicensee Mr. Robert G. t reduce inadvertent ECCS operation. licensee's proposed determination is Fitzgibbons. Jr Isham, Lincoln. & Beale, "The new operating margin betwun bxsed on the following considerations. Ihree First National Plaza, Suite 5200, n rmal drywell pressure and the tnp The prooosed Technical Specification Chicago, Illinois 60602. point is still within the original plant Nanges do not represent significant NRCBronch Chief:Domenic B. accident analysis and falls within the Vassallo. changes in ecceptance criteria or safety staffs guidance on set point margin for resolution of ThD Item II.E.4.2.5. margins and all changes have been Commonwealth Edison Company, previously accepted by the NRC for Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad in the case of the deletion of the bi. other similar units including Dresden 3. Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 weckly MSIV test, the provisions Previous control blades used at Quad and 2. Rock Island County, Illinois remaining in the Techr.ical Specifications for te. ting the MSIVs are Cities and Dresden Unit 2 utilized baron Date of amendmentiequests consistent with the BWR Standard carbide as the absorber material. The November 27,1984. Technical Specification as endorsed by use of hafnium in place of, or in addition Description of amendment request: Chapter 16 of the Standard Review Plan. to. boron is desired to provide ne proposed amendment would revise Therefore, although some relaxation in comparable neutron absorption chtricteristics while eliminating or the Technical Specification to: (1) Raise surveillance frequency will occur, the the drywell high pressure trip setpoint remaining provisions will meet the reducing the production of helium gas, from 2.0 psig to 2.5 psig and (2) remove staffs guidelines for testing of the nis will reduce the source of internal the requirement for bl. weekly main MSIVs. pressure in the control blade structure, steam line isolation valve (MSIV) partial Since the application for amendment mby reducing material stresses and closure test. involves a proposed change that is 'kelihood of stress corrosion The proposed drywell trip setpoint similar to an example for which no sing.The reactivity of the hafnium-change would reduce the probability of significant hazards consideration exists.

Federal Register /'V:1. 50, Nr. 39 /.Wednisd y, February 27, Mi65 / NoticeE, - 7983 the licesee proposes a determination modified into analog trip systems.The full power, reduction cf primary system that the application involves no use of analog trip units, and the boration is required. The reduction in ( significant hazards consideration. scaptable intervals for their calibration boration requires processing of a The staff has reviewed the licensee's and testing, has been reviewed and significant amount of primary system no significant hazards consideration accepted by the NRC in their review and water. ne proposed change is expected determination and. based on this acceptance of General Electric Topical to alleviate this method of operation. review, the staff has made a proposed Report NEDO-21617-A," Analog %e licensee evaluated the effect of determination that the application for Transmitter / Trip Unite Systems for the proposed change on power _ amendment Irwolyes no synificant Engineered Safeguard Sensor Trip distributions (DNB and LOCA kW/ft hazards consideration. Inputs." dated December 1978. The limits), shutdown margin, and ejected I.ocalPublicDocument Room analog sensor transmitter channel rod worth. Based on this evaluation the location: Moline Public Library,504-calibration intervalis less stringent than licensee concluded that all pertinent 17th Street Illinois 61265. the current wuirements on the existing i d' with 6' Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. Robert G. equipment, bJ the proposed calibration C' ', 8,

• m PDII. Spe d He Fitzgibbons, Jr Isham, Lincoln, & Beale, interval falls wn.dn the interval Three First National Plaza, Suite 5200, specified in the NRC-epproved Topical steady-stata minimum DNBRs in the Chicago, Illinois 60602.

Report for this e uipment, and is power level range from 1473 to 1825 NRCBmnch Chief:Domenic B. consistent with t e Standard Technical MWt are bounded by the results at 1825 Vassallo. Specifications as endorsed by Chapter MWt,(2) the axial offsetps am not Commonwealth Edison Company, 18, of the Standard Review Plan. Since affected by the change in the PDIL and th td dm ti continue to limit the allowable peak er S t I enco pass d the example (vi) of the linear heat generation rate,(3) the ""'Y'igi**. Lmt2*R bidance, for which no significant o shutdown margin was verified to be zards consideration is hkely to exist, greater than 1.9% delta k/k for all points Date of amendment requests: January the licensee has made a proposed along the PDII. (4) the revised section of 3,1985. determination that the proposed the PDIL does not affect 3-loop Description of amendment request: amendment involves no significant operation since 3-loop operation Is This amendment would change the hazards consideration. restricted to less than 65% power, and calibration ar.d fungtional test ne staff has reviewed the licensee's (5) the revised PDIL does not affect the frequencies for certain specific no significant hazards consideration maximura calculated ejected rod worths instruments that are being modified into detennination and, based on this at hot zero or hot full power. analog trip systems.These modifications review, the staff has made a proposed %e Commission has provided are being made to achieve full determination that the proposed guidance concerning the application of compliance with the requirements of10 application for amendment involves no the.tandards in 10 CFR 50.92 by CFR 50.49 (Ennironmental Qualification significant hazards consideration. providing certain examples (April 6, of Electrical Equipment). LocalPublic Document Room 1983,48 FR 14870). One of the examples Basis forproposedno significant location: Moline Public Library,504-of actions notlikely toinvolve hazards consideration determination: 17th Street, Moline, Illinois 61265. significimt hazards considerlstI5nt The licensee has evaluated the proposed Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. Robert G. exampIe (vi)] relates to a change'w Technical Specification change and has Fitzgibbons, Jr., Isham, Lincoln, & Beale' determined that the (.hange does not Three First National Plaza

• Suite 5200

' "'I "'" " * * * ' " " ' represent a significant hazards Chicago, Illinois 60002. probability or consequences of a consideration. The licensee's proposed NRCBranch Chief:Domenic B. previously analyzed accident or may determination is based on the fellowing Vassallo. reduce in some way a safety margin, but considerations. where the results of the change are The Commission has provided Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power clearly within all acceptable cri'eria guidance concerning the application of Company Docket No.50-213.Haddam with respect to the system or component standards for making no significant Neck Plant, Middlesex County, specified in the Standard Review Plan: hazards consideration determination by Connecticut For example, a change resulting from the providing certain examples (48 FR Date of amendment request. application of a small refinement of a 14870).The examples of actions likely to December 6,1984. previously used calculational model or involve no significant hazards w Description of amendment request: design method. Because the licensee's considerattonnnelude"(vtTKc ar e The proposed request would revise the valuation shows that all pertinent 6hich either may result in some Technical Specifications (TSs) to modify teria are met for Cycle 13 with th increase to the probability or the control rad Power Dependent Rod revised PDII, the proposed chapsdifalls wid n the cater,ory of exa E (vi). consequences of a previously-analyze Insertion limit (pDIL) curves for the Q accident or may reduce in some way a portion from 1473 to 1825 MWt. Herbfore, the sta ses to safety margin, but where the results of Basisforproposedno significant deternilne- _. ~ e requested action [ the change are clearly within all hazards consideintion determination: would involve a no signif' cant hazards acceptable criteria with respect to the nis change would relax slightly the consideration determination in that it: system or component specified in the restrictions on control rod positions. (1) Does not involve a significant k' Standard Review Plan: for example, a This change is being requested to allow increase in the probabihty or change resultingfrom the application of I greater flexibility of plant operations consequences of a previously evaluated a small refinement of a previously used associated with reducing power level - accident:(2) does not create the x calculational model or design method. from full power and subsequent possibility of a new or different kind of \\would change the calibration a3 The licensee's proposed amendm increasing the power level to full power. accident from an accident previously d With the current curve. in particular evaluated; and (3) does not involve a funttionahastfrequencies-for certain towards the end of core life, reducing significant reduction in a margin of specific instruments that are being, power requires boration. In returning to safety. A

7984 Federal Reg' ster / Vd. 50, N:. 3G / Wednesday, hbruary 27. 1985 / Notices LocalPublic Document Room Consolidated Edison Company of New requested Technical Spacification [IS) locotion: Russell Library,123 Broad York. Docket No. 50-247. Indian Point changes that would incogorate a 'et. Middletown Connecticut 06547 Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, description of and operating ( torneyforlicensee: Gerald Garfield. Westchester County, New York requirements for the new Stack Gas .uire. Day, Berry and Howard. Date ofamendbentinquest: Monitoring System. This systeam has Counselors at Law, City Place. Hartford. December 21,1984. . been installed and made operational to Connecticut 06103-3499. Description of ameadmentiequest. meet the guidana of NUREG-0737 Itssa NRCBmnch Chief John A. Zwolinski. The proposed Technical Specification H.F.1(1)" Noble Gas Effluent Monitor" Consolidated Edison CoinpEny of New ' revision incorporates the requirempnts and Item ILF.1(2) " Sampling and - e pursuant to the Commission's Generic Analysis of Plant Effluents".ne system York, Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point Letter 83-37 dated November 1.1983 provides the capability to monitor Nucl:ar Generating Unit No.2 which requested all pressurized water effluent release rates several orders of Westchester County, New York reactor licensees to submit proposed magnitude above normal rates for Technical Specifications for NUREJ;- accident situations. A Proposed No Date ofamendment request-0737 items listed in enclosure 1 of the Significant Hazards Consideration D1cember 14,1984. letter. Spedfically the proposed Determination for this proposed license Description of amendmentiequest: amendment woald change the IP-2 amendment was published in the Thz proposed Technical Specification Technical Specifications to incorporate Federal Register on March 1,1964 (497R revision incorporates the requirements new requirements for the foHoW (1) W &wmt, b Es cod We to perform augmented inservice Post accident sampling system. (2) noble notice were not acceptable to the NRC. inspection of the IP-2 reactor vessel gas effluents monitor,(3) containment On November 8.1984, the licensee during the second ten yearinspection high range radiation monitor, (4) submitted revised proposed TSs which inters al. The augmented inspection is containment pressure monitor, (5) superseded the earlier submittals. ne e as a es oa aw L d cation containment hydrogen monitor, (6) revised proposed TSa of November 8, control room habitability, and (7), 1984 are now under consideration by the during the cycle 6/7 refueling outage. It contamment samplying and analysis of NRC. ws determined that the ilaw size was plant effluents. Basisforpmposedno significant within the limits of Section XI of the Basisforproposedno significant hazonfo considention determination: ASME Code requiring augmented hazards considemtion determinatioar ne Commission has made a proposed inservice inspection. Therefore, restart The Commission'ha~s pr6vided guidance detendnation that the amendment for deterrnining whether a significant request L'volves no significant hazards ofIP-2 following the refueling outrage hazards consideration exists b7 % consideration. Under the Commission's was conditioned upon Consolidated providing examples of amendments thKt regulations 1610 CFR 50.92, this means on a commitment to perform are considered not likely to involve i that operation of the facility in j ented inservice inspection on the j significant hazards considerations (48 ) accordance with the proposed or vessel. The inspection will be / FR 14870). Such examples include performed at a frequency of three times / changes that constitute additional , amendment would not:(1) Involve a cver the next ten years. / limitations no: presently found in significant increase in the probability of Basisforptoposedno significant Technical Specifications and that make consequences of an accident previously horards consideration determination [- the license conform to changes in the evsluated; or (2) create the possibility of - ~ The Commission has provided guidance regulations. De staff proposes to a new or different kind of accident from concemin8 the APP ication of the determin that this change does not ar.y accident previously evaluated; or (3) l stzndards for detemu ing whether a involve a significant hazards involve a significant reduction in a significant hazards consideration exista consideration since it consists oi m*#8" f safe n / Commissions'provided by providing examples of amendments \\ Technical Specifications and isadditional requirements not in the / guidapce concerning the application of thst are' considered not likely to involve submitted to conform Indian Point' Unit 2 these standards 1 ~ providing certain. significant hazards considerations (48 FR 14870). Such extimples include \\ to chr7ent NRC requirements.' 8xamples (48 FR 14870. April 8,1983). LocalPsblic-Docuredt Room /One of the examples of actions not / chtnges that constitute additional \\ location: White Plains Public library' d/ c nsiderations relate Mely to inolve signmcant hard [ limitation, restriction or control not k 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains. Ne I pres:ntly included in the Technical constitute an additional limitation, ! York 10010. Specifications. ne staff proposes to Attorneyforlicensee: Thomas J. / restricdon, or contml not presently dztermine that this change does not Farrelly, Esq,4 Irving Place. New York, included in the TSs.He Stack Gas New York 10003. Monitoring System is a new system at involve a significant hazards consideration because it consists of j NRCBmnch Chief Steven A.Varga( j 8 k h wi pc 8a& ,g cdditional requirements not currently in / Consumers Power Company, Docket Noa system.ne proposed change the Technical Specifications. 50-155, Big Rock Point Plant, Charlevoix \\ incorporate a description of the system-(location White Plains Public 1.ibrary, sistem into the Big Rock Points TSs a/ County, Mchigan 'and operating requirements for the Loco /Pab//cDocumentRoom Date of amendment request nd 100 Martine Avenue, Whita P!ains, New November 8,1984. which supersedes constitute an additionallimitationclhus York,10810. previous su'umittals dated October 27, they fallwithin the aboveDxample. On 1981, December 15,1981, and December this basis, tlksta!! propose (to conclude Attorneyforlimnseet hoanas J. Fa--ally, Esq.,4 Irving Place, New York that the requested action would involve 16,1983.

• ork 10003-Description of amendment request:In no significant hazards considerations.

the submittals listed above. Consumers LocalPublic Document Room 'Bmoch Chief Steven A. Varga_. Power Company (CPCo.) (the licensee) location: North Central Mchigan =

Fed:ral Register / V 1. 50, N2. 39 / W:dnesday, February 27, 1985 / Nstices W5 A e College.1515 Howard Street, Petoskey. IGCBmnch Chief John A Zwolinski. %erefore, the staff proposed to I Michigan 49770. Chief. determine that the requested action would icvolve a no significant hazards Attorneyforlicensee:Judd L Bacon. Consumers Power Company, Dockeh. consideration determination in that it (1) i Esquire. Consumers Power Company, 50-155 Big Rock Point Plant Charlevoix does not involve a significant increase ( 212 West Michigan

• Avenue, Jackson, County, MicMgan in the probability or consequences of a

~ Michigan 49201. NRCBmach Chief:fohn A.Zwolinski. Date of amendments requested: previously evaluated accident. (2) does Chief. January 10,1985, which supersedes not create the possibility of a new or Consumers Powertodpany, Docket ~No. previous submittals dated May 10,1964 different kind of accident from an and June 20,1984, accident previously evaluated, and (3) 50-155, Big Rock Point Plant, Charlevoix Description of amendment request does not involve a significant reduction County, Michigan Currently. Consumers Power Company in a margin of safety. i Date of amendment request (CPCo.) has a byproduct material LocalPublic Document Room November 14.1984. license (10 CFR Part 30 license) and a location: North Central Michigan Description of amendment request: facility operating license (to CFR Part 50 College,1515 Howard Street. Petoskey, The plant modification to change the license) for Big Rock Point.De Michigan 49770. Reactor Enclosure Treated Waste une proposed amendment would incorporate Attorneyforlicensee:Judd L Bacon. Valve from a hand-switch operated the Big Rock Point Byporduct Material Esquire Consumers Power Company, valve to an automatic closure valve was Ucense into the Big Rock Point Facility 212 West Michigan Avenue pson, made to rasolve Systematic Evaluation Operating Ucense. Michigar 49201. De proposed amendment would also NRCO 2nch Chief: John A.Zwolinski, l$tIonS stem 'I$ech n has been institute sealed source leak test Chief. evaluated by the NRC staffin the .'g'.9h"[p*,fiffg'ations (Ds - Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-Intergrated Plant Assessment report e 369 and 50470, McGuire Nuclear (NUREG-0828) for Big Rock Pc.nt. plant Es do not currently include such section 4.20.4. published in Ma) 1964. a1 Me% tests. County, North Carolina The propcsed license amendment would Consumers Power Company originally require that this automatic valve be proposed such changes in submittals Date of amendment request January periodically tested for proper manual dated May 10,1984 and June 20,1984. 11,1985. i and automatic operation and leak These changes were originaUy noticed Description of amendment request: tightness. in the Federal Register on August 22. ne proposed amendment would revise Basisforpmposedno significant hazards considention determination: 1984 (49 FR 33362). However, the Es Technical Specifications to reflect the The Commission has provided guidance contained in the applications were not second of several refueling stages s acceptable to the NRC. On January to, involved in the continuing transition to concerning the application of the standards in to CFR 50.92 by providing\\ 1985, CPCo. submitted revised proposed the use of optimized furl assemblies :n certain examples (48 FR 14870, April 6, \\ Es which superseded the eariler McGuire Unit 1. The changes would also submittals. The revised proposed TSs of reflect a reduced reactor coolant system j i 1983). One of the exa:cples (ii) of actions / not likely to involve a significant January 10,1985 are now under design flow rate. Changes in the Unit 1 j hazards conside ration relates to a consideration by the NRC. specifications would be made to the, l change that constitutes an additional Basis forproposedno significant time constants used in the overpower ' i limitation. restriction or control not hazards consideration determination: and overtemperature delta T setpoint i presently included in the Technical ne Commission has provided guidam.e equations to allow more flexibility in ( Specifications.The addition of the concerning the Application of the plant operations. Finally, some Unit 2 \\ proposed operab;lity and leak test standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing specifications would be administratively \\ requirements to the Technical certain examples (48 FR 14870 April 6, affected in that they would be combined x Specifications constitutes such an 1983). One of the examples (i) of actions into one specification applying to both \\ Nedditional restriction. not likely to involve a significant McGuire Units 1 and 2, but there would 'Therefore, the staff proposes to / hazards consideration relates to a be no change to the content of Unit 2 determine that the requested acticin purely administrative change to the Es. specifications. would inv'olve a no significarit hazards The incorporation of the existing Basisforproposedno significant - consideration determination in that it: separate byproduct materiallicense into hazards consideration determination (1) Does not invcive a significant the facility operating license is a purely On April 20,1984, the Commission increase in the p obability or administrative change.The NRC issued Amendment No. 32 to Facility consequences of a previously evaluated currently incorporates the byproduct Operating Ucense NPF-9 to change the accident. (2) does not create the license in the facility operating license Technical Specifications to permit possibility of a new or different kind of for new m' clear power plants. Also, the changes in operating limits related to the accident from an accident previously NRC has e.couraged the byproduct transition to the use of optimized fuel evaluated. and (3) does not involve a license incorporation for operating assemblies in McGuire Unit 1. significant reduction in a margin of nuclear power plants. N Accordingly, since its first refueling for safety. Another example (ii) of actions not Cycle 2. Unit t han operated with the LocalPublicDocument Room likely to involve a significant hazards \\ first stage of a transition core consisting location: North Central Michigan / consideration relates to a change that Sh' of approximately % Westinghouse College,1515 Howard Street Petoskey, / constitutes an additionallimitation. 17x17 Optimized Fuel Assemblies inchded in the TSs.The addition of the \\ (OFAs) and % Westinghouse 17x17 restriction, or control not presently Michigan 49770. I parasitic fuel assemblies (STDs). During Attorneyforlicensee:Judd L Bacon. Esquire Consumers Power Company, pmposed sealed source leak test j the next refueling for Cycle 3 the 212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson, requirements to the %s constitutes such l planned transition would replace Michigan 49201. an additional contral. / approximately another % of the original y N / f

7986 Fed;ral Regist:r / Vol 50 No. 39 / Wednesday, Febniary 27, 1985 / Notices" totzl STDs with OFAs. The transition la mechanically compatible with the STD refinement of a previously used t ',ned to continue until an all OFA design, control rods, and reactor calculational model or design' method'*. p { d core is achieved. Internals interfacet Both fuel Because the evaluations previously t .e major-differences between SEs assemblies satisfy the current design discussed show that all of the accidents p and OFAs are the use o( Zircaloy grids bases for the McGuire units. comprising the licensing bases which j fcr the OFAs sersus inconel grids for

b. Changes in the nuclear could potentially be affected by the fuel r

SEs and s reduction in fuel rod characteristics due to the transition from reload were reviewed for the Unit I i diameter.The OFA fuel has similar STD to OFA fuel will be within the Cycle 3 design and conclude that the r design features comparad tythe STD range normally seem from cycle to cycle reloatl design does not cause the y fuel, which has had substantial due to fuel management effects, previously acceptable safety limits to be / operating experience in a number of

c. ne reload OFAs are hydraulically exceeded, the above example can be 1

nuclear plants. Major advantages for compatible with the current STD design. applied to this situation. Accordingly, utilizing the OFAs are:(1) Increased

d. The accident analyses for the OFA the Commission proposes to determine c

efficiency of the core by reducing the transition core were shown to provide that these changes for the Unit 1 Cycle 3 e amount of parasitic material and (2) acceptable results by meeting the reload, including the changes in axial I ! e reduced fuel cycle costs due to an applicable criteria, such as, mimmum flux difference. heat flux bot channel 1 l optimization of water to uranium ratio. DNBR, peak pressure, and peak clad factor, design flow, and time constanta The proposed amendments would temperature, as required. The previously for the overpower and overtemper3tste c provide for plant operalion consistent reviewed and licensed safety limits are r ! delta T setpoint equations, do not i ! with the design and safety evaluation met. conclusions in the licensee's McGuire

e. Plant operating limitations given in invohe a significant hazards

/l consideration. Unit 1 Cycle 3 Reload Safety Evaluation the Technical Specifications will be a (RSEl. The changes to the Technical satisfied with the proposed changes. Another example of actions not likely t Specifications 3/4.2.1 and 3/4.2.2 would From these evaluations,it is to involve a significant hazards c I reflect appropriate adjustments in the concluded that the Unit 1 Cycle 3 design consideration, example (i), relates to a s limiting conditions and surveillance does not cause the previously purely administrative change to limits to be exceeded. Whcal specifications to s eicu / requirements for (1) axial flux difference acceptable safege time constant end (2) heat flux hot channel factor, The effect of consistency throughout the technical t respectively.De the mal hydraulic changes has been evaluated by specifications, correction c.f an error, or I safety analyses usad in the Cycle 3 RSE reanalyzing the limiting events that rely " ch cl Tl fhd that the ( tre based on a reduced design flow rate on overpower and overtemperature Co sai n pro ses (97.200 gpm per loop versus 98.400) but delta T protection. The limiting Rod 8"8[cy n(2 s 8t g;. no wMch I the proposed changes result in no Cluster Control Assembly Withdrawal g 2W ~ ,icant variations in thermal at Power cases from the reload analyses g ggg g l 1s. Changes to Specification have been reanalyzed with the distinctions between units within the .es 2.1-la and 3.2-3a and Table 2.2 increased time constants in the common document are administrative 1 (Iow reactor coolant flow trip setpoint overtemperature delta T setpoint and involve no significant hazards I cnd allowable values) would reflect the equation.The results show that the consideration. reduced reactor coolant system flow departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) LocalPubb'cDocumentRoom i value. Changes to Specification Tables design basis is met. The overpower location: Atkins Library, University of 2.2-1,3.3-2 and 3.3-4 would reflect the delta T trip is not relied upon for North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC 1 changes to the time constants used in protection in any cf the FSAR accident Station), North Carolina 28223. the overpower and overtemperature analyses. However, a spectrum of Attorneyfor hcenseer Mr. Albert Carr. delta T setpoint equations. steamline breaks was analyzed at Duke Power Company, P.O. Box 33189, The Commission proposes to various power levels to determine the 422 South Church Street, Charlotte, determine that the amendment request limiting cases that are presented in the North Carolina 28242. involves no significant hazards FSAR. Some of the small steamline NRCRrunch Chief: Elinor G. considerationiUnder the Commission's breaks at power that were analyzed rely' Adensam. regulstione in 10 CFR 50.92, this means on overyower delta T for protection. 3 th2t operation of the facility in Therefo: e, an analysis was performed Duquesne Light Company, Docket No, accordance with the proposed that veri!b that the DNB design basis is 50-334, Beaver Valley Power Station, amendment would not (1) involve a met for smalt sreaks at full power with Unit No.1 Shippingport. Pennsylvania significant increase in the probability or the increased time constants in the Date of amendment request i consequences of an accident previously overpower delta T setpoint equation. December 12,1964. Evtluated; or (2) create the possibility of The Commission has provided Description of amendment request: a new or different kind of accident from examples of amendments lik'ely to. %is is an application for an amendment cny accident previously evaluated; or (3) Infolve no significant hazards N to Operating License DPR-86, revising involva a significant reduction in a considerations (48 FR 14870). One the Technical Specifications to reduce margin of safety, example of this type is (vi), "A change the probability and consequences of an, The McGuire Unit 1/ Cycle 3 RSE which either may result in some overpressurization event. eccompanying the licensee's amendrr.ent increase to the probability or The proposed changes are currently in requist of January 11,1985, describes all consequences of a previously analyzed the form of plant procedures; lesuance of cithe tecidents comprising the licensihg accident or may reduce in some way a ian amendment would incorporate these bases which could potentially be \\ safety margin, but where results of the procedures into the plant Technical cffected by the fuel reload for the Unit change are clearly within all acceptable Specifications.ne changed C 3 design. %e results of the criteria with respect to the system or specifications would provide additional 4 a conclude that: component specified in the standard protection from pressure transients at .ie Westinghouse OFA reload fuel review plan: For example, a change low temperatures by reducing the essemblies for McGuire 1 and 2 are sulting from the application of a small probability ofinitiation of such a /

N T I I Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 1985 / Notices 7987 snsient, and by limiting the resultant standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing These revisions were provided in [ ( ssure of such a transient to below the certain examples (48 FR 14870). response to Commission requests' . tits set by to CFR 50 Appendix G.ne An example of actions involving no stemming from the staff review of the 6 proposed changes veould also bring the significant hazards considerations is an earlier submittals and in response to i Technical Specifications into amendment involving a purely Generic Letter 84-13. " Technical compliance with General Design Criteria administrative change to the Technica Specifications for Snubbers", dated May f 15 and 31, which address operational Specifications (Example (i)).The 3,1Gt34. requirements of the qur;; essure _ expansion of the organization charts Bases forproposedno significant i t ' - and they,hangrOf position titles am I hazards considemtion determinar/one - e protection system. Basis forproposedno significant suchphanges. The Commission has provided guidance . bczards considemtion determination: ,Another example of actions invo concerning the standards in to CFR I x The Commission has provided guidance po significant hazards consideration is 50.92 by providing certain examples (48 concerning the application of these 'an amendment which may reduce in FR 14870). Examples of actions involving standards by providing certain some way a margin of safety, but wh e no significant hazards consideration are examples (48 FR 14870). One of these, the results of the change are clearly I amendments that involve a change that Example (ii). involving no significant .within acceptable enteria with respe t constitutes an additionallimitation, hazards consideration is "A change that h the system or component specifie in restriction or control not presently constitutes an additionallimitation. thq Standard Review Plan (Examp included in the Technical Specifications restriction or control not precently (vij)sChanges in the responsibili a af [ Example (ii)) and amendmentsF included in the technical speci'ications." seniorinanagement in the approvallevel involving a purely administrative -m As described above. the requested for procedtzreaand in.Lthe Plant Review change to the Technical Specifications - h[ amendment matches this example and Board quoru n requirements fit this [ Example (i)].ne proposed additional the staff, therefore, proposes to example. requirements concerning the sample characterize it as mvolving no On these bases, the Commission selection and tests are similar to significant hazards consideration. proposes to determine that these actions Example (ii)- s localPublic Document Room involve no significant hazards De replacement of the table listing \\ ocation: B.F. Jones Memorial Libray, considerations. anubbers with an LCO describing which l 663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa. LocalPublic Document Room snubbers was made in response to Pennsylvania 15001. location: Appling County Public Library, Generic letter 84-13. It will provide a Attornerforlicensee: Gerald 301 City Hall Dnve, Baxley. Georgia. Charnoff. Esquire. Jay E. Silberg. Attorneyforlicensee: G. F, means of describing allof the snubbers Esquire. Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge. Shaw, Pittman. Potts and required to be operable in general terms. Trowbridge,1800 M Street, NW., Trowbridge.1800 M Street, NW., thereby eliminating the need to list each snubber or to request amendments if /ashington, D C. 20036. Wa shington, D.C. 20038. NRCBranch Chief: Steven A.Varga. NRCBranch Chief: John F. Stolz. snubbers are added or removed. It is an administrative change and is similar to Georgia Power Company Oglethorpe Georgia Power Company Oglethorpe example (i). Pow er Corporation, Municipal Electric Power Corporation Municipal Electric On the basis of the above, the Authority of Georgia, City of Dahon, Authority of Georgia City of Dalton, Commission has made a proposed Georgia Dockets Nos. 50-321 and 50-Georgia. Dockets Nos. 50-321 and 50-determination that the application for, 366, Edwin L Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 366, Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant, lY3s nts o es no significant Nos.1 and 2. Appling County, Georgia Nos.1 and 2 Appling County, Georgia [n g Date of amendment request: April 24. Date of amendment request:May 2. L.ocalPublic Document Room 1984, as superseded November 19,1984. location: Applirqs County Public Library, 1984. Descn,pt:on of amendment request: Descnption of amendment request: By 301 City Hall Drive. Baxley, Georgia. The Technical Specification changes letter dated October 27,1983, as Attorneyforlicensee: G.F. proposed by this submittal are a partial supplemented Decembe-20,1983. Trowbridge. Shaw, Pittman, Potts and revision to the changes requested in the Georgia Power Company raquested Trowbridge,1800 M Street. NW., licensees

• July 9,1982. October 24,1983, amendments to the operating licenses WasMngton, RC. 20036.

and December 20,1983, amendment for Hatch Units 1 and 2. requests which are predously ncticed in ne requested amendments would NRC Branch Chief: John F. Stolz. the Federal Register on January 28,1984 modify the Technical Specification GPU Nuclear Corporation, Docket No. (49 FR 3347). The additional changes Limiting Conditions for Operation 50-219. Oyster Creek Nuclear proposed in this April 24,1984, submittal (LCOs) and surveillance requirements Generating Station Ocean County, New include:(1)The expansion of for snubbers for these vnits.These Jersey organizational charts to show more requested amendments were noticed in positions and to reflect organizational the Federal Register on February 24 Date of amendment request: May 1 changes. (2) changes b titles and 1984 (49 FR 7037). By letter dated May 5, and 25,1984. responsibilities of senior tranagement, 1984, as superseded by letter dated Description of amendment request: (3) changes that allcw approval of November 19,1984, Georgia Power The proposed amendment requests certain plant procedures at managment Company has revised the previously approval for changes to the Appendix B ~ levels other than that of the General noticed submittals to provide additional Technical Specifications to reflect the ~ Manager-Plant Hatch, and (4) modify requirements concerning the selection of change in the location for three marine the Plant Review Board quorum the sample for the functional tests, to woodborer exposure panels and for requirements. provide additional functional test revisions to the procedure for Bas s forproposedno significant requirements and to replace the table calibration of environments 1 monitoring hazards coasideration determination: listing snubbers with an LCO instrumentation.Rese changes would ne Commission has provided guidance description of the snubbers that are be to section 3.0, Special Monitoring and required to be operable. Study Activities, Woodborer Monitoring concerning the application of the M

7988 Federal Register / Vdl. 50 No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 1985 / Notices Program. of Appendix $ f the Oyster Creek Technica4ecifications. section XIindicated that conflicts may NRCBmnch Chief: John A Zwolinski. Basisforproposedno signif> cont occur between the AShE code %czards considemtion determinotion: requirements and the plant Technical GPU Nuclear Corporation Docket No. Specifications. To avoid such conflicts. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear I ie proposed changes to Appendix B,, nvironmental Technical Specifications. the Commission requested that the Generating Station, Ocean County. New wilh (1) Update Table 3.1 of the plant licensee,in accordance with I*'**I Technical Specifications which i 50.55a(g)(5)(ii). apply for an describes the locations of the woodborer amendment to the plant technical Date ofamendmentrequest: September 1R,1964. exposure panels and (2)4fecrease the specificaticns to replace such conflicting Description ofamendment request _ frequency of calibraT!bnkf technical specifications with a reference environmental water quality monitoring to 10 CFR 50.55a. De licensee proposed Requests approval of Appendix A instrumentation for measuring salinity. by an amendment request dated June 8. Technical Specification changes to dissolved oxygen, water temperature 1984 to incorporate the requirements of incorporate conductivity and chloride and pH. the revised regulations on inservice limits given in Regulatory Guide 1.58 These proposed changes may affect inspection and testing in the plant into section 3.31 Reactor Coolant the measurement oi the impact oiplant technical specifications. Quality. ne licensee previously, by an Basisforpmposednosignificant operation on the environment. They do amendment request dated December 11 hozords considemtion determination: not affect the operation of the plant. Therefore the staff proposes to 1979, proposed to delete nondestructive During the integrated assessment of determine that the requested action ~ examination requirements for the Oyster Creek in the Nuclear Regulitory involves no significant hazards reactor coolant system from I 4.3 of the Commission's Systematic Evalcition consideration in that the proposed - technical specifications because that Program (SEP). the Commission requirement was contained in the reviewed the water purity of BWR action does not involve a significant Oyster Creek Inservice Inspection primary coolant. %is is i 4.20, page 4-increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously Program for the second 10-year interval 27 of NUREG-0822 Integrated Plant evaluated, does not create the and also proposed to renumber Safety Assessment Oyster Creek technical specifications, pages and Nuclear Generating Station, dated possibility of a new or different kind of tables in 5 4.3 as needed to September 1982, under SEP Topic V-an accident from any previously evaluated and does not involve a accommodate the proposed changes. 12A, Water Purity of BWR Primary The proposed amendment would:(1) Coolant.10 CFR Part 50 (Appendix A. 1 significant reduction in a margin of safety. Incorporate into the technical General Design Criterion 14), as Loca1Public Document Room ' specifications requirements m the implemented by guidance in Regulatory location: Ocean County Library,101 revised regulations and (2) delete a Guide 1.56. requires that the reactor Washington Street. Toms River, New required inspection from the technical coolant pressure boundary have sey 08753. specifications which is also contained in mmmal pmbabihty of rapidly ( ittorneyforlicensee: G.F. the Oyster Creek Inservice Inspection propagating failure.His includes .owbridge. Esquire. Sha w, Pittman, Program. The Commission has provided corrosion. induced failures from Potts, and Tro vbridge,1800 M Street, examples oflicense amendments that impurities in the reactor coolant system. NW Washington, D.C. 20036. are not likely to involve significant ne hnsee, at 6e gest o% NRCBronch Chief John A. Zwolinski. hazards considerations (48 FR 14870). Commission,is proposing to revise the.~ Examples of amendments not likely to techmcal specifications in section 3.3.E. GPU Nuclear Corporation Docket No. invo1ve significant hazards Reactor Cwlant @ahy,in the 5M19. Oyster Creek Nuclear considerations include: (vii) Changes t Appendix A Technical Specifications for Generating Station. Ocean County, New g{censt e hs Oyster Creek. %e licensee proposes to nn a in ery increase the requirements on reactor Date of amendment request: June 8. minor changes to fehty operations calant water quahy. 1984, superseding the December 11,1979. clearly in keeping with the regulations The licensee is also proposing to add request-and (i) purely administrative changes t text to the Bases for section 3.3.E.This is Description ofamendmentrequest the technical specifications.%e to: (1) Explain the effect of chlorides in The proposed amendment requests proposed amendment incorpora ting into the reactor coolant and the reasons to approval of administrative revisions to the technical specifications the revised keep chloride levels consistent with Inservice Inspection (ISI) and Inservice regulations fall within example (vii). The guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.56 Rev. Testing (IST) requirements in section 4.3. deletion from the technical 1, and (2) refer to the reactor coolant Reactor Cooh.nt, of the Oyster Creek specifications of redundant temperature of 212*Finstead of to the Apper. dix A Technical Specifications. requirements falls within example (i). h. reactor condition, co:d shutdown. in the Basisforproposedno significant Because these amendments fall within Bases for messurement of conductivity hazards consideration determination examples of actions not likely to involve [ of the reactor coolant. ' On February 27,1976, the Nuclear significant hazards considerations, the Regulatory Commission revised the staff proposes to determine that the The proposed changes 'aould constitute an additional limitation. inservice inspection testing requested action involves no significant f restriction, or control not presently '. requirements for ASME Code Class 1 hazards consideration. / included in the Technical Specifications. and 3 components for nuclear power,2. LocalPublicDocument Room / plants in to CFR 50.55a. The revised location: Ocean County Library 101 I that is, a more stringent limiting \\ 2 \\ condition for operation and are,therefore, c regulations require inservice inspection Washington Street, Toms River, New \\ and testing set forth in Section XI of the Jersey 08753. ASME, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Attorneyforlicensee: G.F. \\the Commission guidance (48 FR 14870, ' Addenda. A teview by the Trowbridge. Esquire, Shew. Pittman, April 6,1983) as a type of action which corisideration. Therefore, the staffwould not i Potts, and Trowbridge,1800 M Street, nission of1974 edition ASME NW., Washington, D.C. 20036. propo'ses to determine that the f \\ N / w/ 4

~ Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesdhy, February 27. 1985 / Notices 7989 .= i requested action would not involve a ne Commission requested licensees Creek and the Augmented Offgas [ significant hazards consideration. to propose revisions to the System. LocalPublic Document Room " Administrative Controls" and He licensee's proposed changea to J t i location: Ocean County 1.ibrary,101 " Definitions" sections of their plant's implement Appendix Iin the October 22, I ' Washington Street' Toms River. New technical specifications to implement 1984, submittal are the following- (1) To. jersey 08753. the 50.72 and 50.73 regulation changes. add new definitionsi(2) to revise the Attorneyforlicensee: C.F. The Commission also stated that there protective instrumentation requirements Trowbridge, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman,- may be other chanes to the technical in Table 3.1.1 on the Offgas system Potts and Trowbridge'1800 M Street, specifications required to reflect the isolation on high radiation: (3) to revise NW, Washington. D.C. 20036, revised reporting requirements (e.g., and expand section 3.6 on radioactive NRCBmach Chief: John A.Zwolinski. technical specifications requiring a effluents, to add new sections,and Licensee Event Report instead of a limiting conditions for operation on .t CPU Nuclear Corporat. ion, Docket No. Special Report). Solid Radioactive Waste, section 3.14 5M19, Oyster Creek Nuclear g, tj,,3,,,, proposed changes and on Radioactive Effluent Monitoring ' Generating Station. Ocean County, New I'Y pertaining to the new reporting Instrumentation, section 3.15: (4) to add requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 surveillance requirements in Table 4.1.1 Date of amendment request fune 2, consutute a change to make a license and 4.1.2 on high radiation isolation on 1979, revised October 22.1964. conform to changes in the regulations the air ejector off-gas: (5) to rge and Description of amendment request: where the license change results in very expand section 4.6 on Radioactive Requests approval of Appendix A minor changes to facility operations Effluents; (6) to add new sections and Technical Specification changes clearly in keeping with the regulations.. surveillance requirements on Solid pertaining to definitions listed in section These changes are consistent with Radioactive Waste, section 4.14, on L definitions, that were previously example (vii) of the Commission's Radioactive Effluent Monitoring approved by the Commission but were guidance (48 FR 14870, April 6,1983) at, Instrumentation Applicability, section not and should be listed in the Table of a type of action not likely to involve a 4.15, and on Radiological Environmental Conients: the new reporting significant hazards consideration. Surveillance, section 4.16, and (7) to add requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73; ne liuensee has proposed extensive new requirements and to revise section the Radiological Etlluent Technical changes to the Appendix A Technical 6.9.3, Unique Reporting Requirements.of Specifications (RETS) required by Specifications to implement the the Administrative Controls.These Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50; and the requirements of Appendix 1. Numerical changes constitute an additional s radioactivity limits and surveillance on Guides for Design Objectives and limitation, restriction or control not the reactor coolant. Dese are proposed Limiting Conditions for Operation to 7 presently included in the technical changes to section 1 Definitions; section Meet the Criterion "As Low as is specifications and revisions to the 2, Limiting Conditions for Operations: Reasonably achievable" for Radioactive technical specifications to conform to / section 3. Surveillance Requirements: Material.,, to 10 CFR Part 50. These changes in the ugulations where the and section 6, Administrative Controls technical specifications are definitions, license change results in very minor of the Oyster Creek Technical limiting conditions for operation and changes to the facility operations clearly I Specifications. surveillance requirements on the Oyster in keeping _with the regulations. 3 Basis forproposedno significant Creek radioactive waste system and the Therefore, th'ese, changes are consistent hazards considemtion determinationt radioactive effluents from the plant with examples (ii) and (vii) of the The licensee has submitted a new Table including liquid radwaate, gaseous Commission's guidance (48 FR 14879, of Contents for the Appendix A radwaste and solid radwaste. April 6,1983) as types of actions not Technical Specifications.His page On June 1,1979, Jersey Central Power likely to involve a significant hazards includes the definitions 1.26 to 1.29 and Light submitted their proposed conside.ation. which were approved by the Technical Specification Change Request The licensee also proposed limits on Commission in Amendment 75 dated No. 69 to incorporate the requirements the radioactivity in the reactor coolant August 27,1984 to the license. However, of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.His to revise the existing requirements in in that amendment, the new definitions submittal was discussed with the staff section 3.6.D and 4.6.C of the technical { i were not added to the Table of on September 13,1979, and the licensee specifications. During the integarted j Contents. This proposed change is a agreed that revisions to this submittal assessment of Oyster Creek in the purely administrative change to the were needed.The licensee has since Commission's Systematic Evalution technical specifications to correct an then submitted letters dated February Program (SEp), the Commission error. Therefore, the change is 15,1980, and October 22,1984, reviewed the ta diological consequences consistent with example (i) of the requesting changes to the Technical of the failure of smalllines carrying Commission's guidance (48 FR 14870, Specifiestions pertaining to Appendix I reactor coolant outside containment. April 6,1983) as a type of action not to 10 CFR Part 50. This is section 4.36, page 4-44, of likely to involve a significant hazards By letter dated February 15.1980, NUREG-0822. Integrated Plant Safety consideration. Jersey Central Power and Light Assessment Oyster Creek Nuclear In Generic Letter 8343, dated submitted Technical Specification Generating Station, dated September December 19,1983, the Commission Change Request No. 79 which 1982, under SEP Topic XV-16 of the stated that i 50.72 of Title to of the Code incorporated the 10 CFR Part 50 same title.%e Commission stated that of the FederalRegulations was revised Appendix I desiga objectives for the reactor coolant radioactivity for and a new I 50.73 was added, effective gaseous effluent releases.This submittal Oyster Creek should be maintained January 1,1984. Section 50.72 revises the was issued as Amendment 49 to the within the limits imposed on new immediate notification requirement for Oyster Creek Technical Specifications operating reactors which are the limits operating nuclear power reactors and and was designed to be a temporary of the Commission's Standard Technical ! 50.73 provides for a revised Licensee change, to be replaced after the Specifications on General Electric Event Report System. complete RETS are issued for Oyster Boiling Water Reactors (NUREG-0123).

~ l 7990 Federd Register / Vol. 50. N;. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 1985 / Notices y p The licensee has proposed new_h Technical Specifications and is, f 'n the existing technical specifications therefore, consistent with example (ii) of consistent with the overa acquirements which are more restrictive on the plant Fire Protection Pmgram la the Commission's guidance (48 FR 14870. 10 CFR 50L48 and guideline tions in f reactor coolant radioactivity. { April 8,1983) as a type of action which the staff's Branch T Positions en. / .nerefore, these changes are consistent / would not involve a significant hazards the plant Fire Protaction Program.' W ( with example (ii)of th'e Commission's / consideration. Therefore, the staff \\ guidance (48 FE 14870. Apfil 6,1983J as a proposes to determine that the The licensee stated in the gropoead x type of action not likely to involve a requested action would not involve a change to halve the frequency of Derefore, based onTeabove the.- significant hazards consideration. auditing the activities assodated with significant hazards consi@ ration. Loco /Public Document Room the plant Operational Quality Assuranci staff proposes to determine that all of th2 requested actions discussed above locotion: Ocean County Library,101 Program that it is based on the Washington Street. Toms River, New suidelines of Regulatory Guide 133 do not involve a significant hazards Jersey 08753. (February 1978). Quality Assurance consideration. Attorneyforlicensee: GS. Programs Requirements, of draft (Issued LocolPublic Document room locationr Trowbridge, Esquire, Shew, Pittman. for comment) Regulatory Guide 1.144 Ocean County Library 101 Washington Potts, and Trowbridge teca M Street. (January 1979), Auditing of Quality Street. Toms River, New Jersey 08753. NW. Washington. D.C. 20036. Assurance Programs for Nuclear Power Attorneyforlicensee: GI. Trewbridge Esquire, Shaw. Pittman. NRCBmnch Chieh John A. Zwolinski. Plants, and ANSI /ASME N45.2.12-1977. The requirements that are in ANSIf/ Potts, and Trowbridge.1800 M Street. GPU Nuclear Corporation Docket No. AShE N45.2.12-1977 for auditiM6ality NW, Wash on. D.C. 20036. M9, Oystar Creek Nuclear assurance pmgrams for nuclear power NRCBmn Chief: John A.Zwolinski. Generating Station. Ocean County, New piants are acceptable to the staff and Jersey GPU Nuclear Corporation. Docket No. provide an adequate basis for complying 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Date of amendment request: October with the pertinent quality assurance Gznerating Station. Ocean County, New 24 and December 24,1964 requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR I*I Descriptior ofamendmentrequest: 50 subject to the guidelines in Date of amendment request: October Request approval of Appendix A Regulatory Guide 1.144. For internal 22,1984. Technical Specification changes audits of the operational phase activities Description of amendmentrequest pertaining to Fire Protection and Quahty of the quah assurance pmgram the The proposed amendment requests Assurance which:(1) Will decrease the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.33 approval for changes to the Appendix A frequency of required audits on the plant should be followed. Technical Specifications realted to the Fire Protection Program and Operational In his letter dated December 24.1984 Rezctor Coolant System Leakage in Quality Assurar.ce Plan, and (2) delete the licensee has proposed to delete the reference to sprinkler system #13 as Sprinkler System #13 from Tables 3.12.1 ' ions 1.,3.3 and 4.3 of the Technical fire detection instrumentation and as a and 3.12.2 of the Appendix A Technical cifications by:(1) The addition of ..dClor coolant leak rate detection spray / sprinkler system. Specifications. ne Laundry Room in the requirements and surveillance,(2) the Bos/s[orproposedno signi[icong office building on the 35*-0* elevation is incorporation of requirements for hozords considemtion determination In being converted to a count room the licensee's letter dated October 24. containing electronic equipment. identified and unidentified leakage. (3) 1984. the licensee requested a change to Sprinkler System #13 was originally the addition of definitions for identified section 6.5.3.1 of the Appendix A installed to protect cables passing and unidentified leakage, and (4) the Technical Specifications to add the throgh the laundry area to the Reactor correction of the Bases to section 3.3. Reactor Coolant, to reflect the actual requirement that the Oyster Creek Fire Building from the combustible loading plznt configuration. Protection Program, and its due to accumulated clothing in the implementing procedures, and the laundry facility. Basisforproposedno significant activities required by the Oyster Creek With the conversion of thelaundry horords consideratiori determination: Operational Quality Assurance Plan to facility, the combustible loading due to his Technical Specificatiori Change meet Appendix B 10 CFR Part 50, be aecumulated clothing will nolonger Request by the licensee will provide audited under the cognizance of the exist since Sprinkler System #13 was edditional requirements in the Ter.hnical Vice President Nuclear Assurance at specifically designed to protect from a Specifications on leakage from the least once per 24 months. Cunently fire originating in the laundry bins reactor coolant system and additional these programs are aded at least once which are now gone.This removalis surveillance requirements for the reactor coolant leakage detection systems. per 12 months under the requirement in - desired because electronic test I 6.5.3.1(a) on audits for conformance of These changes constitute additional facility operations to provisions equipment is being brought to the area and there is the potential of accidently requirements, limitations and controls contained within the Technical wetting this equipment from inadvertent not presentlyincluded in the Oyster Specifications.ne licensee proposes to initiation of the sprinkler system. Creek Technical Specificauons on decrease the frequency at which audits %ese changes do not affect plant reactor coolant leakage. are required on the plant programs to at operation.The changes are rainor This change will also incorporate a least once per 24 months. changes to licensee administrative more restrictive Technical Specification The licensee's proposed change to activities clearly in keeping with the requirement for unidentined leakage halve the frequency of auditing the Fire regulations and with changes to the fire cnd will correct the Bases for section Protection Program is in response to the protection areas / zones within the plant. 3.3. Reactor Coolant, of the Technical Commission's Generic latter 82-21 Specifications to have the Bases reflect dated October 6.1982.

• Technical The staff proposes to determine that the N cetual plant configuration.

\\ Specifications for Fire Protection proposed cha:tges would not involve a significant hazards consideration Nis change would constitute an i Audits." Dis generic letter provides k guidance for a biennial audit of the Fire determination in that they:(1) Do not tionallimitation. restriction, or involve a significant increase in the ..atrol not presently included in the j Protection Program which would be probability or consequences of a i s ~-.m -- ' l

Federal Register / Vol, 50 No. 39 / Wednesday. February 27, 1985 / Notices 7901 l previously evaluated accident; (2) do not longer include mitigation of an operating NRC Branch Chief: }ohn F.Stols. e create the possibility of a new or accident, namely hydrogen purging Wim ud Elsan &ctric Company. different kind of accident from any he proposed revision to the Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-314, Donald accident previously evaluated; and (3) surveillance of fire hose stations (TS C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit Nos.1 and do not involve a significant reduction in 4.18.6) would rmit deferring g,g ( inspections w en the stations are a margm of safety. LocalPubhc Document Room inaccessible because purging is not Date of amendment request: location: Ocean County Library,101 Permitted. December 17,1984. Washington Street', Teens River, Nevi Basis forproposedno significant Description of amendment regues& v Jersey 08753. hazards considemtion determmatwn: The proposed amendment would change Attorneyforlicensee: C.F. %e proposed TS changes on primary the Technical Specifications to update Trowbridge, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, coolant activity and on vent / purge valve the offsite organization chart, and Potts, and Trowbridge,1800 M Street. operability and surveillance are in the organization and responsibilities of the NW., Washington, D.C. 20036. same category as Example (ii),48 FR Plant Nuclear Safety Review Committee NRCBmnch Chief: John A.Zwolinski. 14870, which cites changes that (PNSRC) and'the Nuclear Safety and constitute additional limitations. Design Review Committee (NSDRC). to CPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket restrictions or controls not presently update the reporting requirements No. 5M89, hree Mile Island Nuclear included in the TSs as changes not h.kely addressed by the recent revislog to to Station, Unit No.1. Dauphin County. to involve significant hazanis CFR 50.73, to revise the contgannent Pennsylvania consideration. The proposed 'ISs would isolation valve listing, to correct an error Date of amendment request: , be substantially more restrictive on U in one reference to the battery Primary coolant activity limits and i electrolyte temperature for surveillance. November 24,1983, as revised and i supplemented June 5,1984 and \\would require more sampling. The limits and to make a number of editorial December 3.1984. on plant operation with inoperable f changes. I*

• '}* **

g'"" / Basisforproposedno sigitificant Description of amendment request: g hazanis consideration determinatwn: The proposed amendment would Purging would be permitted would y %e Commission has provided guidance incorporate Technical Specification (TS) changes needed to complete Multiplant reduced. h / concerning the application of the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing Action [MPA) B-24, containment purge dmg= a e o hncation certain examples (48 FR 14870, April 6. and vent. The proposed change on primary of the TSs on reactor building [ urge air1983). One of the examples (i) of an b " I coolant activity (TS 3.1.4 and Table 4.1-8$,'(he# e7obine action not likely to involve a significant hydroge

3) was previously noticed in the Federal I

th di of hazards consideration is a purely administrative change to technical Register on May 23,1984 (49 FR 21830), dr 2as cci n tion and the Commission a staff proposed function-Th'ese changes are in Tame specifications; for example, a change to ]/ achieve consistency throughout the // I, that the changes on primary coolant categ6ry as Example (vi). 48 FR1 4 technical specifications, correction of an activity do not involve a significant 1.e', changes which may result in som error, or a change in nomenclature.The. hazards consideration.The staff's ihcrease in the probability or position remains unchanged. onsequences of a previously analyzed Proposed amendment is directly related The proposed change in vent / purge ccident but which are clearly within to this example with the exception of the valve operability and surveillance e acceptance criteria of the Standard change to the reporting requirements requirements 33 3.6. 4.4.1.2.5, and Review Plan (SRP), because the SRP and the revision to the listing of the 4.4.1.7) would provide operability pehnits the use of hydro, gen recombin containment penetration valves. T M pose Another example (vii)is a change to requirements for large purge valves so inliehofIndm[c$ang in_surdance m make a license confirm to changes in the that if one valve is inoperable, the companion valve in-line would be f 6e fire hose stations is also ations. Revisions to to CFR 50.73 e it necessary to revise the technical closed or the reactor shut down. lf, considered to be an Example (vi) type of m however, the problem is sealleakage, action which. agah, is clearly within the specifications on reporting requirements both valves in-line would be shut to acceptance criteria of the SRP because andIdefinitions, therefore, the proposed prevent leakage or the reactor would be the change does not alter the SRP chhge in reporting requirements is shut down.The proposed TSs also surveillance requirements, but only d,itectly related tothis example. Another would limit the opening of purge valve l extends the surveillance intervals which 4xampfe (vi) of an action not likel to to 30 degrees during power operation, are not specified in the SRP. involve a significant hazards would identify activities for which ased on the foregoing, the / consideration is a change which el e purging is permitted and would require Co a'

• staff roposes t

/ may result in some increase to the instances of purging to be limited. The determine that e pro amendment probability or consequences of a 4 changes in section 4 would provide involves no significant hazards previously. analyzed accident or may surveillance requirements for purge consideration. reduce in some way a safety margin, but valves. ' LocalpublicDocumentRoom where the results of the change are The TSs on surveillance of the location: Oovernment Publications clearly within all acceptable criteria s hydrogen purge system (TS 4.4.3) would Section State llbrary of Pennsylvania, with respect to the system or component \\ be eliminated because hydrogen Education Building, Commonwealth and specified in the Standard Review Plan. ( recombiners are available per Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, The proposed change to revise the i Amendment 87, Additionally, the Pennsylvania 17128. containment isolation valve list (on Unit j reactor building purge air treatment Attorneyforlicensee: G.F. No.1)is directly related to this example. system TSs (TSs 3.15.2 and 4.12.2) would Trowbridge, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & However, this change was approved for be revised to be compatible with the Trowbridge,1800 M Street, NW., Unit 2 by 1.icense Amendment No. 64 system's safety function which wouldmo Washington, D.C. 20036. and was established there as not / ,/ /

1 7992 Federal Regist:r / Vol 50 No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 1985 / Notices involving a significant hazards than 0.38 inch is like this example in that operation was not yet demonstrated. W consideration. The Unit I changes are the new requirement is less than the 0.38 ne proposed removal of the hwnee 'ame as made for Uni' 2 and the inche (% inch is 0.375). Since the condition is directly related to the

configurations are alike for both measurement techniques are not as example in that the licensee han

.s in this regard. On the basis of the precise for accumulation measurement, cbove, the Commission proposes to the latter change is also like the performed a seismic qualification - - conclude that the proposed change to . example (i) which is a purely requirements to the criterion previovely review, as required, and has fulfilled the the Technical Specifications involves a administrative change to technical

found acceptable to the NRC, %e no significant hazards consideration.

, specifications. Editorial changes location: Maude Reston palenske " pmposed by the licensee are directly -l license Amendment No. e issued on June-LocalPublic DocumentIBom 16,1978, also concluded that the Memorial Library,500 Market Street, St. relatcd to example (i). Example (1) also amendment involved no significant involves changes to achieve consistency t }oseph, Michigan 49085. throughout the technical specifications. hazards consideration pending the final. 8 Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald seismic qualification.hus,if the NRC Charnoff, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, potts This is essentially the reason to regroup staff review confirms the licensee's the ice baskets on Unit 1 to make both cnd Trowbridge,1800 M Street NW., Units Technical Specifications and the conclusions concerning this I Washington, D.C. 20038. Westinghouse Standard Technical requirement, the amendment involves no I NRCBmnch Chief: Steven A. Varga. Specifications more alike. On the above significant hazards considerations. On f Indiana and Michigan Electric Company, basis, the staff proposes to conclude this basis, the staff proposes to ( v Docket Nos. 50415 and 50416, Donald that the amendments involve a no determine that the amendment reqJet ( C Cook Nuclear Plant. Unit Nos. I and sigmficant hazards consideration. does not involve a significaot hazards F consideration. 1, B:rrien County, Michigan LocalPublic DocumentRoom C Date of amendment request-location:Maude Reston Palenske Loco!Public Document Room,, L Memorial Library. 500 Market Street St. location:Maade Reston Palenske 1 December 28,1984. Descriptwn of amendment reguest: Joseph. Michigan 49085-Memorial Library,500 Market Street. St. C ne proposed amendments wquid make Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Joseph, Michigan 49085. I chrnges to the Technical Specifications Chamoff, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald for the, Donald C Cook Nuclear plant, and Trowbridge.1800 M Street, NW., Charnoff, Esquire, She w, Pittman, Potts h Unit hos.1 and 2, to require ice Washington, D.C. 20036. and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, NW' B measurements and surveillance on NRCBmnch Chief. Steven A. Varga. Washington, D'C. 20038. boron concentration and on pH at 25 *C, Indiana and Michigan Electric Company. NRC Bmnch Chief: Steven A. Varga. ti end to change the restriction on ice Docket No. 50416 Donald C Cook Iowa Electric Light and Power Company, g cccumulation on structures from 0.38 Nuclear Plant Unit No. 2, Berrien Docket No. 5H31. Duane Arnold cl m s to % inches. The change to Unit 1 County, Michigan Energy Center, Llan County, Iowa ical Specifications would change at sndenser surveillance from 12 to 9 Date of amendment mquest: May 19, Date of amendment request-g; months. regroup the baskets under 1978, supplemented December 18,1979 December 5,1984 and Janvory 24,1MS. ,y March 28,1980, July 8,1983, June 1 and Description of amendment request; hi surveillance to be hke Unit 2. require ice December 7,1984. The proposed amendment request would condenser doors be dernonstrated at c,nce per 9 months for 50% of the doors Description of amendment equest change the Duane Arnold Energy Center tic rathzr than at 6 months for 25% of the The request for amendment was initially (DAEC) Technical Specifications related st. doors, and editorial changes needed for noticed on September 21.1983 (48 FR to the instrumentation for core and er clIrity. 43126). This amendment for the Donald containment cooling and containment co Basisforpmposedno significant C Cook Nuclear Plant. Unit No. 2, would isolation. ne proposed changes consist go. hozords considemtion determination: remove licensing condition 2C(3)(r) of two groups of changes. Group 1 ne Commission has provided guidance which required a seismic qualification consists of those changes which do not fn concerning the application of the review of the safety injection system affect physical or operational stxndards in30CFR 50.92 by providing front panel, hot shutdown panel, certtin examples (48 FR 14870, April 6, auxiliary relay panels and switchboard characteristics of the plant, but clarify pn the testing and limiting conditions for op 1983). One of the examples (ii)'of an and switchgear components, relays and operation for core and containment ha action not likely to involve a significant pressure switches as identified in the cooling instrumentation and j s hazards consideration is a change that N safety evaluation which was issued with surveillance tables, and Croup 2 foc constitutes an additionallimitation, ' the licensing condition. Amendment No. consists of changes related to additional 4:t 6 issued on June 18,1978. imposed go, restriction, or control not presently license condition 2C(3)(r). The licensee's restrictions and limitations imposed in included in the technical specification. the Technical Specifications to assure j The chartges to require ice proposal would remove the license that four containment isolation valvea Est \\mersurements and surveillance oncondition on the basis that the seismic converted from power operated valves Ne-boron concentration and on pH at 25'C./ The required information has beenj qualification has been accomplished. to manual valves will be maintained in Cor to reduca the ice condenser surveillatice the closed position. ne modification DI from 12 month' 109 montherand to submitted to the NRC for review. will therefore result in an increase in it s require ice condenser doors be Basisforpmposedno significxmt confid?nce that the containment will be Var dimonstrated at once per 9 months for hazanis considemtion determination-isolated when required. I" 50% of the doors rather than 6 months One of the Commission examples (48 FR Basisforpmposedno significant 14870) of amendments not likely to for 25% of the doors (more doors involve a significant hazards hazards considemtion determination: dimonstrated more often over a period consideration relates to relief granted ne Commission has provided D ') are al! changes directly related upon demonstration of acceptable standards (10 CFR 50.92(c)) for Dec exarnple. The changes to restrict detennining whether a significant D L . cccumulation to % inch rather operation from an operating restriction hazards consideration exists. A The that was imposed because acceptable proposed amendment to an operating the i

t Federal Register / Vol 50, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 1985 / Notices 79BS Nense for a facility involves no (DAEC) Technical Specifications . changes against the three standards

nificant hazards consideration if regarding the spent and new fuel storage specified in 10 CFR 50.92(c), as follows

peration of the facility in accordance racks. The proposed revisions are (1) Revising the existing fuel storage with the proposed amendment would intended to clarify the existing rack Technical Specifications to saa not:(1) involve a significant increase in Technical Specifications and the bases bundle reactivity limits (k.a,) does asot s the probability or consequences of an related to Spent and New Fuel Storage. involve a physical plant change ce mode accident previously evaluated; or (2) The current fuel storage rack of plant operation. The k a, values create the possibility of snew or Technical Specifications for reactivity being proposed represent fuel reactivity. 7 d:fferent kind of accident from any control are written in terms of effective limits equivalent to the existing storage accident previously evaluated; or [3] multiplication factors (K n). In the past, rack K, values.Rerefore, since there is involve a significant reduction in a because there has been a substantial no change in the pennissible reactivity i margin between the maximum limits or any physical characteristics of ' f margin of safety. The licensee has evaluated the permissible reactivity and the fuel the plant. the license concludes that the proposed changes in accordance with bundle reactWity, the compliance based proposed change does not involve any the standards for a no significant on K.ameasure has not been of concern. significant increase in the probability or hazards consideration finding in 10 Cm However, as fuel designs are improved consequences of any criticality accident. 50.92[c).The licensee states that the to permit longer fuel cycles, the (2) Since the proposed change is Gmup 1 changes involve clarifications, available margins are reduced to a point merely an alternative way of ca}cyfating i corrections of e rors, and moving a where a simpler method for determining compliance with unchanged standards, rrferenced note to a page where it is compliance with the Technical the change is not expected to introduce cited. Such changes are administrative Specifications (than complex a possibility of a new or different in nr.ture and fully meet the above cited calculations of K.a)is needed to readily accident or malfunction from any 10 CFR 50.92(c) standards for a finding determine compliance with the previously analyzed. of no significant hazards considerations. Technical Specifications.%e proposed (3) Since the existing fuel rack The Group 2 changes involve conversion changes will specify fuel bundle k.a, reactivity limits are not changed by the of four power operated containment values which correspond to the fuel rack proposed revision to the method of isolation valves to manual valves. Technical Specification K., limits. by compliance the proposed change is dot Because the converted valves will be using kon,, values, which are readily expected to reduce the margin of safety. maintained in normally closed position, available, the process of checking %e NRC staff has reviewed the above the containment isolation will be compliance with the reactivity Technical licensee's evaluation and agrees with enhanced. The licensee has therefore Specifications is made, simpler. For the licensee's conclusions that the made the findmg that the Group 2 General Electric Company (GE) Commission's standards for a no -hange entails additionallimitations designed fuel racks, the equivalent a gnificant hazards determination nd restrict 2ons in the Technical bundle k.na,is 1.31 as desenbed in the met. De staff bas, therefore, made a specifications and meets the 10 CFR GE Standard Application for Reactor Fuels (NEDE-24011 12-A). ne fol6 wing' "[c'a on o sht th d th 50 92(c) standards for a no significant f e cant hazards consideration finding. specific changes are requested in the hazards consideration. LocalPublicDocument Room l The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed amendment te uest locatmn: Cedar Rapids Public Library,g Licensee's evaluation against the three (1) Add bundle k na, mit to the new standards specified in 10 CFR 50.92(c) fuel rack specification: 426 Third Avenue, SF~ Cedar Rapids, and agrees with the licensee's (2) Replace current axial enrichment Iowa 52401. conclusions that the proposed request criteria with an equivalent bundle Attorney /orlicensee: Jack Newman, for amendment meets the standards for k.na, value in the spent fuel storage Esquire. Harold F. Reis, Esquire, a no significant hazards considerations rack specification: and Newman and Holtzinger.1025 i finding. (3) Add bases and references Connecticut Avenue, NW, Wasnington, The staff has, therefore, made a describing the basis for arriving at the D.C. 2003& proposed determination that the storage rack specifications and methods application involves no significant for performing the compliance checks. NRC Bmnch Chief:Domenic B, Vasenllo. hazards consideration. Basis forproposedno significant LocalPublic Document Room hazards considemtion determination: lowa Electric Light and Power Company, location: Cedar Rapida Public Library, ne Commission has provided Docket No.50-331.Duane Arnold 426 Third Avenue, SE., Cedar Rapids, standards (10 CFR 50.92(c)) for Energy Center Unn County, lows determining whether a significant Iowa 52401. Attorneyforlicensee:Iack Newman, hazards consideration exists. A Date of amendment request: December 7,1984. Esquire. Harold F. Reis. Esquire, proposed amendment to an operating Newman and Holtzinger,1025 license for a facility involves no Description of amendment request i Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington. significant hazards consideration if The Iowa Electric Light and Power cperation of the facilityin accordance Company (the licensee) proposes to j D.C. 2003& NRC Bmnch Chief Domenic B. with the proposed amendment would change the Technical Specifications for

Vassallo, not: (1) Involve a significant increase in Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) to the probability or consequences of an permit loading of the General Electric lowa Electric Ught and Power Company, accident previously evaluated; or (2)

Company's (GE) advanced fuelIsad Docket No.50-331.Duane Arnold create the possibility of a new or Test Assemblies (LTAs)in the DAEC i Energy Center, Linn County, town different kind of accident from any core. Date of amendment request accident previously evaluated; or (3) He licensee has agreed to participate g December 7,1984. involve a significant reduction in a in GE's advanced fuel development Description of amendment request: margin of safety. program by accepting five LTAs foe use l The proposed amendment would revise The licensee has evaluated the in DAEC beginning with Cycle 8 the Duane Arnold Energy Center proposed Technical Specification operation.The design of the LTAs and

l 7994 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 1985 / Notbes thz dmonstration of their conformance not: (1) Involve a significant increase in ne NRC staff has reviewed the

• - all applicable thermal-mechanical the probability or consequences of an licensee's evaluation per 10 CFR 50.92 rmance criteria are documented in accident previously evaluated; or

,E report. " Generic Licensing of create the possibility of a new or (2) and concurs with its conclusions that 1 the Commission standards for a no wo4 Lead Test Assemblies (Special different kind of accident from any significant hazards determination are i R; port MFN-068-84). " TheKRC staffs accident previously evaluated; or (3) ' met. The staff has, therefore, made a conditional acceptance of the GE report involve a significant reduction in a proposed determination that the is documented in our Safety Evaluation margin of safety, application involves no significant m-R: port " Acceptance cfJteistencing of e In accordance with the requirements hazards consideration.

• T Lic:nsing Special Report MI'N-068-84 of to CFR 50.92, the licensee has LocalPublic DocumentRoom Leid Test Assembly Licensing." For that provided the following evaluation to locotion: Cedar Rapids Public Library, report the use of the LTAs was found to determine if the application involves no 428 Third Avenue SF.,CedarRapids, be ceceptable if the following conditions significant hazards considerations:

Iowa 52401. wtre satisfied: 1.The 1984 IAad Test Assemblies will (1) ne licensee states that, for the Attorneyforlicensee: Jack Newman, n:t be the most limiting fuel assemblies reasons stated below, the proposed Esquire Harold F.Reis. Esquire. - amendment does not involve a residence in the core. significant increase in the probability or~ Newman and Holtzinger.1025 in thi core at any time during their Connecticut Avenue.NW., Washing /,on, t 2.The user of these Lead Test the consequences of accidents D.C.20038. Ass;mblies must verify that the fuel previously evaluated. GE has performed NRCBmnch Chief:Domenic B.y disign critena and specified fuel design the LOCA analysis in accordance with Vassallo. limits are met for 1984 Lead Test 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix K, to evaluate Asstmblies for the specific conditions in the design basis event for the LTA lowa Electric IJght and Power Company, the reactor chosen for irradiation of bundles being used in Cycle 8.%e Docket nom 1, Duana Amold these assemblies. results of this analysis show that, with Energy Center,1lan County, Iowa

3. The user of the Lead Test the proposed Maximum Average Planar Date ofomendmentreguest; Assimbhes supplies the results of the Linear Heat Generation Rate December 7,1984.

tuns:Ints and accident analyses for the (MAPillGR) changes to the Technical Description ofomendment request: 8 Specifications, the loading of the LTA This submittal by the Iowa Electric Light bundles in the DAEC core complies with and Power Company (the licensee) { ca ei t n s nec ssa to reflect the use of the assemblies. the requirements of 10 CFR 50, requests changes to the Duane Arnold Bastd on the analyses of the DAEC, Appendix K. Energy Center (DAEC) Technical the licensee concludes that: GE has also evaluated th,e transients Specifications to:(1) Permit reactor " The LTAs will be loaded into core for the LTA bundles, for use in Cycle 8, operation with one recirculation loop [ ins such that they will not be the in accordance with the methods out of service, [2] to include General simiting bundles with regard to 8CCeptable to the NRC. The results of Electric Company's (GE) Service cperating margin to any fuel thermal the analyses presented in the licensee's Information Letter (SIL) 380, Revision 1 limit when compared to the remaining application show that the LTA recommendations regarding thermal-g fuelin the core.This has been performance is within the limits hydraulic stability for dual loop and entlytically verified for Cycle 8 specified in the Updated Final Safety single loop operations, and (3) to ( cp;retion and will be strictly adhered to Analysis Report (UFSAR) when revised incorporate administrative changes ( in actual operation during Cycle 8. For Mmimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) dealing with updating references and future cycles, this will be verified during operating limits are incorporated in the deletion of blank pages. Presently, the the dtsign of the core loading Technical Specifications. DAEC operating license requires a unit c arrangements; and CE has evaluated the Linear Heat to be in cold shutdown within the e (2) The results of the Loss-of-Coolant Generation Rate (LHGR) limits for both . succeeding 24 hours if an idle r i Accident (LOCA) and abnormal LOCA and Rod Withdrawal Error recirculation loop can not be returned to c periting transient analyses verify that (RWE) events.He results of the GE service within 24 hours.The licensee r til applicable fuel design criteria and analy:Is show that the LTA performance previously requested authorization for t Specified Acceptable Fuel Design Limits is within the limits specified in the unlimited single loop operation of / (SAFDL) are met by the LTAs during UFSAR. DAEC. Subsequently, Tennessee Valley Cycle 8 operation in the DAEC. (2) The above summary of the Authority's operation of Browns Ferry e As a result ofits evaluation, the licensee's evaluation shows that the Unit 1 ( a boiling water reactor similar in a licer.ne has proposed DAEC Technical thermal-mechanical performance will be design to DAEC)in the sm' 6 e loop mode r l Specification changes which will permit met by the LTA fuel bundles and all the of operation at 59% power lead to t c the loading of the GE's LTAs in the fuel des!gn criteria and SAFDLs will be concerns related to thermal-hydrablic DAEC core in ccmpliance of the criteria satisfied (as stated in the introduction). Instability. GE, in SIL 8t380. Revision 1, li a cndSAFDL Therefore, the addition of LTA bundles addressed these concerns by providing Basisforproposedno significont to DAEC will not create the possibility the boiling water reactor licensees a hozords considemtion determination of a new or different kind of accident. generic guidance to obviate thermal-a The Commission has provided (3) Since the LTA bundles are being bydraulic stability induced neutron flux n st nd:rds (10 CFR 50.92(c)) for subjected to proposed additional oscillations. Re licensee has proposed 11 a determining whether a significant operating limits (to be incorporated in Technical Specifications in accordance hazards consideration exists. A the Technical Specifications), and since with the guidance provided by GE in li a propos:d amendment to an operating thermal-mechanical perfonnance of the SIIe380, Revision 1. S bW for a facility involves no LTA meets the NRC fuel design criteria Specifically, the proposed changes 2 ant hazards consideration if and SAFDLs, the operation of DAEC requested by the licensee consist of:(1) ri .on of the facility in accordance with LTA fuel bundles will not reduce Deletion of the license condition 11 a wius th2 proposed amendment would any, margins of safety, restricting the single loop operation and.

Fed;ral Regi:ter / Vol 50. Nr. 39 / Wedn:sdty. F;bruary 27, Ues / Notices 7906 for single and dualloop operation, alleviate the concerns related to the amendment meets the C===W's 1 orporating requirements in the thermal-hydraulic instability by adding standards in to CFR 50.s2(c). hnical Specifications to detect surseillance requirements for detecting %erefore, the staff has made a .rmal hydraulic instabilities induced thermal-hydraulic instabilities and proposed determination that the /' ~ by neutron oscillations and specifying specifying the remedial operator actions application involves no ;ignincent operator response to the detected for responding to them. Such operator hazards consideration. instabilities. (2) revision of the Technical actions will also assure that there will LocalPublic Document Roorn Specifications to provide Average Power be no significant increase in the location: Cedar Rapids Public 1.ibrary. l Range Monitor ( APRM) flh scram trip r probability or consequences of an 428 Third Avenue SE, Cedar Rapids.__ and rod block settings, an increase in accident. Based on the above Iowa 52401. the safety limit Mmimum Cntical Power discussion, we find that the proposed Attorneyfor #censee: Jack Newman. Ratio (MCPR) value, and a revision to changes are not expected to Esquire. Harold F. Reis. Esquire, the allowable Average Planar Linear significantly increase the probability or Newman and Holtzmger.1025 Heat Generation Rate [APLHGR) va!ues, consequences of previously evaluated Connecticut Avenue NW Washington. ond (3) updating of some references and accidents. D.C.20038. NRCBmxh Chief Domenic B. deletion of some blank pages:fican? (2J Consideration of Possibility of a New Vassallo. Basisforproposednosigm. ot Diiferent Kind of Accident 1 hczords consideration determination: The Commission has provided The DAEC operation with one Mississippi Power & light Compaap, standards (10 CFR 50.92(c) for recirculation loop is not expected to Middle South Energy.Inc., Soudl> determining whether a significant create the possibility of a new or Mississippi Electric Power Association, hazards consideration exists. A different kind of accident from any Docket No. 50-418. Grand Gulf Nuclear proposed amendment to an operating previously analyzed as all abnormal Station. Unit 1. Claiborne County, license for a facility involves no operating transients which could be Mississippi significant hazards consideration if initiated with single loop operation such Date of amendment request: January operation of the facility in accordance as an inadvertent startup of an idle 30,1985 with the proposed amendment would recirculation pump or pump trip have gy. tion of amendment request-p not:(1) Involve a significent increase in already been analyzed in the FSAR, and am n ent would a the probability or consequences of an reviewed and accepted by the staff. ,g accident previously evaluated; or (2) For single and dual loop operation. the personnel more independent of plant create the possibility of a new or addition of the surveillance .,.g g pe pe different kind of accident from any requirements and remedial actions for Specification changes would be:(1) accident previously evaluated; or (3) thermal-hydraulic instability detection Change the title of Manager, Supplier volve a significant reduction in a and responseinvolve normal plant QA to Manager. Audits QA on the irgin of safety, operating practices and therefore, are Offsite Organization chart; (2) delete the We have evaluated the licensee's not expected to create a new or different Nuclear Plant Quality Superintendent request for the proposed Technical kind of accident from any previously from the Unit Operating Organization Specifications for compliance with the analyzed in the FSAR. chart; (3) change the composition of the above cited standards. (3) Cons.deration of Reduction in a Plant Safety Review Committee by i ~ (1) Consideration of Probability and Margin of Safety substituting the Manager Nuclear Site ' Consequences of Accidents De licensee has proposed the revised QA for the Quality Superintendent. Our evaluation of the proposed operatinglimits, setpoints and Basis forpipposedno significant changes indicates that the principal procedures for the proposed single and hozords considemtion determination: accident associated with a single dual loop operation. Our evaluation of The Commission has provided certain recirculation loop operating would be an the licensee's proposal indicates that the examples (48 FR 14870) of actions likely inadvertent startup of the idle proposed changes will ensure that the to involve no signficant hazards recirculation loop pump causing a FSAR margins of safety will not be considerations.One of the examples is a transient. However. such a transient reduced during normal operation and purely administrative change to Technical Specifications. Change (1) is was evaluated in the DAEC Final Safety with one recirculation pump not Analysis Report (FSAR) ard found to operating. Our mnclusions are based on similar to this example since it is shnply satisfy the Commission's regulations. In our review of the evaluations by GE in a change of title to more accurately addition, the licenste has proposed support of the DAEC single loop reflect the primary responsibility of the / more restrictive Technical Specification operation presented in the GE report Position. while the lines of responsibility and communication are not changed. In changes related to MCpR limits, flow-NEDO-24272. biased scram and rod block setpoints. For single and dualloop operation, the Change (2), the Nuclear Plant Quality and reduced MApLifGR operating additional surveillance requirements Superintendent will be moved from the limits, to ensure that the probabilities and remedial actions required of the Unit Operating Organization and placed and the consequences of accidents with operator for detection of and response under the Manager Nuclear Site QA in single recirculation loop operation will to thermal hydraulic instabihty will the Offsite Organization le order to not be significantly increased. We have increase the present margin of safety. minimize pos:Ible conflicts of interest in also evaluated the implication of The updating of several references the gianagement of the plant opsestion. thermal-hydraulic stability for both and deletion of some bisnk pages entaa ne Nuclear Plant Quality single and dualloop operations after the administrative changes and clearly Superintendent will spend more time on licensee's proposed Technical. satisfy the Commission standards for a his primary responsibuity of quality Specification changes based on the GE "no significant hazards involved" inspection since the ma}ority of other ccommendations in SIL 380. Revision 1 finding. QA functions he has beea performing, are incorporated. Our evaluation shows Based on the above mnsiderations the including review of procedures and that the proposed changes would , staff concludes that the propooed procurement documents will be \\

7996 Fed;ral Regist:r / Vol. 50, NO. 39 /.WIdn:sd:y, Febru ry 27, 1985 / Notices digated to othe QA positicus.This program and provide a plan for and eupporting bases for the Emergency Aange is an improvement in the quality achievm' g compliance with Appendix j. Ventilation System and the Control " urance functions of the plant since Basisforproposedno signficant Room Air Treatment System and its 2 Unit Operating Organization hazards considemtion determination: associated instrumentation.%e Mtnagement will not have line ne Commission has provided guidance majority of the proposed changes are the responsibility for the quality inspection concerning the application of the result of modifications made to the functions. In Change (3). substituting the standards for determining whether a Control Room Air Treatment System to Manager, Nuclear Site QA for the significant hazards consideration exists resolve NUREG-0737. Item II.DS.3.4..__ Quality Superintendant i$he Plant by providing certain examples (48 FR " Control Room Habitability".ne c S.fety Review Committee will maintain 14870).The examples of actions licensee *s description of the proposed the level of review from a quality involving no significant hazards change is as follows: rseurance standpoint, since the Quality consideration include:"...(li) A Niagara Mohawk submittal dated March Superintendent reports to the Manager change that constitutes an additional 28,1983. described modifications to the Nuclear Site QA. Proposed changes (2) limitation, restriction, or control not Control Room Air Treatment System which and (3) improve safety in that they allow presently included in the technical would establish an acceptable degree of QA activities to focus entirely on quality specifications; for example, a more comp!iance with General Design Criterion to. requirements and to be independent of stringent surveillance requirement" and nese modifications included installataos of plant production activities. Because "(vii) A change to make a license redundant radiation monitors on the air / proposed changes (2) and (3) would not conform to changes in the regulations, inta ch li u'N cff;ct plant equipment design, safety where the license change results in very d criteria or safety analyses and will minor changes to facility operations ne cheges described below reflec; the result in an improvement in plant safety clearly in keeping with the regulations.,, change from the manual to automatic by enhancing the independence of ne changes proposed in the Initiation of the ControlRoom AirTreatment quality assurance from plant production, application for amendment are System and add umiting conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirements to ' these changes do not significantly encompassed by the above examples in further increase the system's rehability. that:(1) %e adding of additional valves X h addition ofitem [Il to page 17sa Increase the probability or / consequences of an accident previously/ to be localleak rate tested is an requires surveillance testing of the control svaluated or create the possibility of a/ additional restriction and is, therefore, Room Air Treatment System at least once new or different kind of accident from( similar to example every operstms cycle. This addition wiD help cny accident previously evaluated, or do other changes propo(ii) above, and (2) sed as necessary ens ty o e yste because the licensee is currently thzy involve a significant reduction in a\\ required by the regulations to limit, mirgin of safety. Accordingly, the x reflect changes in the design basis of the 8 '%mmission proposes to determine that primary containment leakage and is to system. Changes to page 188* indicate the ta changes do not involve a make the license conform to 10 CFR Part ad6tions of Tables 3.6.2m and 4.6.2m which i .ificant hazards consideration. 50, Appendix J. are considered minor increase the Umiting Con &tions for tocalPublic Document Room with regard to facility operation thus Operation and Surveillance Requirements of J the Control Room Air Treatment System.ne locadon: Hind Junior College, Mclandon cleerly keeping with the regulation, and, addition of item (13) to page 190 increases ubr:ry, Raymond Mississippi 39154. therefore, are similar to example (vii) ' ting Conditions for Operation of g

above, Attorneyfor h.censee: Nicholas S.

tective Instrumentation to include Reynolds. Esquire. Bishop, Uberman, Therefore, since the application for instrumentation which automatically initiates Cook, Purcell and Reynolds.120017th amendment involves a proposed change the emergency train of the Control Room Air c Strett, NW., Washington, D.C. 20036. that is similar to an example for which Treatment System. Addition of page 232d a NRCBmnch Chief Elinor G. no.ignificant hazards consideration pr vides the set point, minimum number of in Ad:nsam. exists, the staff has made a proposed trip systems and minimum number of tl determination that the application instrument channels that must be operrtL n for each position of the reactor mode switch Ni;g:ra Mohawk Power Corporation, involves no significant hazards except the shutdown position. Addition of Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point consideration. p page 232e provides details of the Surveillance Nucliar Station, Unit No.1, Oswego LocalPublic DocumentRoom Requirements. including a sensor check, p. County, New York location: State University College' at instrument channe! test and instrument d Date ofamendment request: March 3, Os wego, Penfield Ubrary-Documents, channel calibration. pr 19*7 as supplemented and clarified by Oswego New York 13126. In add tion, we are reque ting that the submittals dated November 1,1983 and A ttorney for licensee: Troy B. Conner, Technical Specifications governing the m August 28, m Jr., Esquire Conner & Wetterhahn, Suite Emergency Ventilation System and the 1050' 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue' NW" ControMoom Air hatment System W G Description of amendment request: Washm' gton, D.C. 2M Updated to reflect the current standards for m nis proposed action was initia11y NRCBranch Chief: Domenic V. specifications reference ANSI N.510-1975 for testing the adsorber filiters. Currently, our N, notictd in the Federal Register (48 FR Vassallo. m. 38400) on August 23,1983. This testing the adsorber filters (i.e. charcoal re amendment would make changes to the Niagara IWohawk Power Corporation

• filtersl. ANSI N.510-1975 is also endorsed by wi Technical Specifications to modify the Docket No. 50-220 Nine Mile Point Regulator Guide 1.52 [Rev. 2), but the current the list cf Reactor Coolant System Isolation Nuclear Station, Unit NO.1. Oswego Standard Review Plan endorses ANSI N.510-Se 19eo. ne salient difference between the two wi Vclves and Primary Containment County, New York standards is the environmental conditions for sy:

Isol:11on Valves as well as other Dateofomendmentrequest October testing. We believe the newer standard more in provisions of the license to achieve 1,1984. realistically reflects the environmental pr conformance with 10 CFR Part 50, Description ofamendment sequest: $, N,',*r *h h'p*h* wendix J.The proposed change is in The proposed amendment changes the ,,p d .1 i$ specifications submitted herein reference the wi-mse to an NRC request dated section of the Technical Specifications ANSI N.510-19eo. ad, ast 7.1975 that asked the license to pertaining to umiting Conditions for ne existing page 173 references ANSI the review their containment leakage Operations, surveillance requirements N.510-1975 for testing of the operability of the wit

W p Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 1985 / Notices 7997 / N in'et heater at rated power for the Emergency / Furthermore, increases in surveillance \\ significant hazards consideration. One itilation System.The new standard. ANS1/ requirements have been determined to ) of the examples (ii), relates to a change 10-1980, requires the same testing involve no significant hazard consideration. ! that constitutes an additionallimitation, i acedure. his page is being revised to as indicated in item ti of the section regarding / restriction, or controI not presently - ' conaistently reference thr new standard examples of amendments that are considered included in the Technical Specifications, \\ j y throughout the Control Room Air Treatment, not likely to involve significant hazard ' He current Technical Specifications do i and the Emergency Ventilation Technical considerations (Toderal Register. April 6. not include requirements for the Remote j Specifications. 1963 p.14870). The quahfication requirements for the Th'e preposed changes'regarding testing of

• Shutdown Panels.Re proposed change replacement charcoal {rej51afement is

,_ thccharcoal filters do not involve a N / adds the requirements for the Remote-r necessary when the charcoal fails its Significant Hazards Consideration as defined Shutdown Panels to the Technical / Ventilation System and the Control Room Av, [vi of amendments that are considered not l surveillance test) for the Emergency in to CER 50.92.This change is similar to iteni\\ Specifications.Derefore, since this / \\ change adds an additional control to the, TEeatment System are given on pages 176 add likely to involve significant hazards current Technical Specification limit, th,e i 177, and 178b and 178c respectively. The l considerations (Tederal Register, April 6. i change is similar to example (ii).Re current nuclear power air cleaning standard. 1983, p.148 0). This change is similar in that 8taff Proposed to determine that the/ ANSI 509-19RO hill be referenced directly \\ the intent of acceptance Criteria are met as N rather than Fegulatory Guide 152, which \\ specified in the Standard Review Plan sectiov Proposed change does not involve a re ferences MSI 5o9-19*5. Similarly, the N 5.1 with respect to charcoal filters. / \\significant hazards consideration since statemaas on these pages for HEPA filter Faff h88 ?evtewed the lic#, it is similar to the examples of actions ensee s invbiving no significant hazarda1V design requirements are being updated. significant hazards consideration considerati5n cited by the Commiesion. Note.--Page 188 currently contains a determinations and based on this review g typographical error which would be corrected concurs with the licensee s with the approval of this submittal, namely, g. gg g g g the first parag*aphs of 3 6 ta and 4 6 Za determinations.The staff proposes t Oswe8o Penfield Library-Documents, should currently read "* *

• Tables 3.6.2a to determine that the proposed change Oswego, New York 13126.

3 5.21." and "* *

• Tables 4 6.2a to 4 6.21.",

does not involve a significant hazards A ttorney for hcensee: Troy B. Conner, respectively. consideration since it is similar to the Jr, Dquin, Conner & Wetterbahn, Suite Finally, our current Technical examples of actions involving no 1050,1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., i Specifications call for testing frequency of 18 significant hazards consideration cited Washington, D.C. 20006. months for both the Emergency Ventilation by the Commission. NRCBmnch Chief Dor tenic B. System and the Control Room Air Treatment LocalPublic Document Room Vassallo. System. Since we are now operstmg on a location: State University College at nominal 24 month refuelmg cycle. we request Oswego, Penfield Library--Documents, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, to have our Technical Spec:fication reflect Te current refueling cycle frequency. Oswego. New York 13126. Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point A ttorney for licensee: Troy B. Conner, Nuclear Station, Unit No.1, Oswego Basis forpmposed no sigm.ficant Jr., Esquire. Conner & Wetterhahr. Suite County, New York .sazards consideration determination: 1050,1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Date of amendment request June 29, The licensee has presented its Washington, DC 20006. 1984 as supplemented and clarified determination of significant hazards NRC Bmnch Chief:Domenic B. December 3,1984. consideration as follows: Vassallo. s Description of amendment request: These proposed Technical Specification Niagara Mohaw,k Power Corporation, Re proposed amendment changes the changes submitted herem involve no Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point section of the Technical Specifications siemficant ha ord considerations. Therefore. in accordance with the proposed amendment. Nuclear Station, Unit No.1, Oswego pertaining to Limiting Conditions for the operation of Nine Mile Point Unit I will County, New York Operations, Surveillance Requirements Date of amendment request:May 1, and supporting bases for the Emergency 1984 as supplemented and clarified Cooling System and Accident October 22,1984. Monitoring Instrumentation.The pr ba ilit t cons q e ae nt previously evaluated. or Description of amendment request; proposed changes to the technical (21 Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident ' De proposed amendment changes the specifications are in response to Generic previously evaluated. or section of the Technical Specifications Letter 83-36 "NUREG-0737 Technical (3) Involve a significant reduction in a pertaining to Limiting Conditions for Specifications" which was issued by the mergin of safety. Operations. Surveillance Requirements Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Moreover. the changes reflecting the t.id supporting bases for the Remote November L 1983.ne proposed Control Room Ventilation System Shutdown Panels.ne Remote changes are consistent with the intent of i I Shutdown Panels were added to the the model technical specifications ne le Po n t it 1 F s ch e ro plant to facilitate plant shutdown from included as an attachment to Generic manual to automatic initiation decreases the outside the cotitrol roorr. The Letter 83-36. In addition to the technical recpense tune capabihty of the system which will reduce the potential consequences during modification was performed to meet the changes. the proposed technical the event that this system is required. requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, specifications also revise the format of Second, addition of surveillance requirements Appendix A.This amendment includes 3.6.11 " Accident Monitoring will help to ensure the operabihty of the incorporation of the Remote Shutdown Instrumentation" and eli.ninates system and therefore. increase its reliablity. Panels into the Technical Specification. paragraph 3.1.3b which was intended to In addition. these changes are consistent with Basis forproposedno significant be a temporary amendment that is no ar ge$ tom hazards conss;deration determination: longer effective. The Commission has provided guidance Basis forproposedno significant Co se o s ti no e 'nanual to automatic initiation is consistent concerning the determination of hazards consideration determination rith Standard Review Plan section 6.4. The ,dditional surveillance requirements to test significant hazards by providing certain The Commission has provided guidance the operability of the system is consistent examples (48 FR 14870) of amendments concerning the determination of with Standard Technical Specifications 4.7.2.. considered nit likely to involve eignificant hazards by providing certain

7998 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wedn;sdry, Fibruiry 27, 1985 / N;tices ex:mples (48 FR 14870) of amendments concerning the application of these (IH D.3.4).%ese proposed Technical considered not likely to involve standards by providing certainN Specification {TS) changes submitted by 'nificant hazards consideration.Two examples (48 FR 14870). One of the\\ the licensee are in response to the NRC .he examples (i) and (ii), relate to examples of actions not likely toinvolve Generic letter 83-36 entitled "NUREG- . singes that are administrative and that a significant hazards consideration ) 0737 Technical Specifications" whicit constitute an additional limitation, relates to changes that constitute was issued on November 1.1963. l restriction, or control not presently. ('. additional restrictions or controls not included in the Technical Specificatio In addition, the licensee proposes the i Tha majority of the changes contained. presently included in the technicaladdition of a surveillance requirement to specifications, verify the automatic transfer feature of-l within the amendmerrt r@est impose n The Commission,in a revision to the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling

1. dditional restrictwns or controls for s

j licensees tolmpiove and modify their Appendix! to 10 CFR Part 50, required System (RCIC) suction (!LK.3.13 and rnodifications associated with Thti ILK.3.22). Also, a temporary amendment rehted issues. The balance of the j radiological effluent systems in a change for Unit 3 regarding continued l change is administrative as described manner that would keep releases of power operation with an inoperable above1Therefore, the changes og / radioactive material to unrestricted similar'ta exampleBTi) and (ii). The staffyareas during normal operations as low RCIC is proposed for deletion since it is now obsolute. This administrative ~; proposes to determine that the proposed 3.a,s reasonably achievable. In complying change was covered in Amendment No. change does n'otinvolve a signififanf with this requirement it became 102 (July 2,1984). Two other NURECr hyzards,consideratiori Mnce it'is sidar necessary to add additional restrict;ons to the exemples of actions invohing no and controls to the Technical 0737 items were also addressed b((4his ( significanthgs consideration ~ Specifications to assure compliance. application. Surveillance and operability by the Comnussion' y-His caused the proposed addition of requirements for U7.2 (additionof two LocoIPublic Document Room Technical Specifications described new reactor water level recorders) were location: State University College at above.The staff proposes to determine first proposed in a TS application dated Oswego, Penfield Library. Documents, that the applications does not involve a February 11.1982. We licensee now Oswego. New York 13128. significant hazards consideration since propose to revise its application A ttorney for heensee: Troy B. Conner, the change constitutes additional addressing LCO actions for reactor (r., Esquire. Conner & Wetterhahn. Suite restrictions and controls that are not water level recorders by adding an LCO 1050,1747 Pennsylvama Avenue, NW., currently included in the Technical shutdown provision of 30 days for one Mshingtor D C. 20006. Specifications in order to meet the inoperable channel, and 7 daya for two NRC Becnch Chief: Domem,c B. Comrmssion mandated "as low as inoperable channels.This represents a Vassallo. reasonably achievable,, effluent change from the current TSs which Omaha Public Power District. Docket object 2ves. cover only one reactor waterlevel ~s 50-285 Fort Calhoun Station, Unit kccMc Documenmoom indicalor where plant shutdown is required within 7 days if one channelis

1. Washington County, Nebraska Io[$oj a{C ary g

inoperable and shutdown within 48 .Jote of amendment request October 68102. b urs tf b th channels areinoperable. 18,1984. This application supersedes an Attorneyforlicenseer Leboeuf, Lamb, Finally, the licensee requests the t earlier application for amendment dated Leiby, and MacRae,1333 New addition of operability requhements for March 21,1976 and a supplement dated klarch 30,1979. Hampshire Ave., N.W., Washington, two aw reactor pressure recorders as D.C.20036, part of the requirements of NUREG-Description ofomendment request: NRCBranch Chief:)ames R. Miller. 0 3, Suppleinent 1 (SPDS). The amendment would make changes to Basisforpmposedno signficant the Radiological Effluent Technical Philadelphia Electric Company, Public f,osords consideration determination: Specifications that would bring them Service Electric and Gas Company, into compliance with Appendix 1 of 10 Delmarva Power and Ught Company, The Commission has provided exa nples t CFR Part 50. It would provide new and Atlantic City Electric Company, (48 FR 14870) of types of amendmes Technical Specification sections Dockets Nos. 5M77 and 50-278, Peach not likely to involve signficant hazards I , consideration. One of the examples (ii) ' 8 defininglimiting conditions for Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units / cperation and surveillance requirements Nos. 2 and 3. York County, Pennsylvania relates to a change that constitutes an additional limitation, restriction, or 1 8 for radioactive liquid and gaseous Date ofomendment request: October control not presently included in l r effluent monitoring: concentration. dose, 9,1984 Technical Specifications. The proposed ; 8 cnd treatment of liquid. gaseous and Description ofomendment request: TS changs involving the addition of / 5 solid wastes: total dose: radiological The amendments would add limiting LCO surveillance and auministrative f r sr vironmental monitoring that consists conditions for operations (IEOs), requirements for the following NUREG-4 of a monitoring program, land use surveillance requirements, and \\0737 items fall into this category: Post-I census, and an interlaboratory administrative requirements for the accident sampling (II.B.2), high range comparison program. The change would following NUREG-0737 required items: noble gas monitors and radioactive i also incorporate into the Technical Post. accident sampling (U.B.2). high iodine arid particulate sampling systems c Spzcifications the bases that support the range noble ses monitors and (U.P1.1. and 117.1.2), containment high. tl operation and surveillance radioactive iodine and particulate range drywell radiation monitors it requirements. In addition, some changes sampling systems (ILF.1.1 and (LF.1.2), (UE.1.3), containment pressure monitors b would be made in administrative containment high-range drywell (UE.1.4) containment waterlevel C controls, specifically dealing with the radiation monitors (Ilf.1.3), monitors (UT.1.5), containment e process control program and the offsite containment pressure monitors (117.1.4), hydrogen monitors (US 1 M contrcl ri dosa calculation manuah containment waterlevel monitors room emergency air ti wosyv ma a 'sisforproposedno significont (U F.1.5), containment bydrogen (ULD.3.4.), automatic transier os kCIC r* -ds consideration determination monitors (ILF.1.6) and control room suction (II.K.3.13 and U.K.3.22), and ir . Commission has provided guidance emergency air filtration systems reactor pressure recorders proposed,fc+ ti s6

m I Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesday, february 27.1985 /' Notices 'JOBE %e Safety Parameter Sys' tem (SPSD-measures for determining inadequate nomenclature to conform with to CIG JREG-0737 Supp'lement 1). '1hese core cooling; or (2) create the possibility 50.73. In addition, the requirement to oposed changes fallin the abover of a new or different kind of accident report failure of a priinary coolant cztegory in that all the proposed previously evaluated because the system safety or relief valve to close ie' changes involve additionallimitations,i proposed LCOs covering the three proposed for deletion since the new r:de restrictions, or control not presently reactor water level instruments (narrow (10 CFR 50.73) required reporting of included in the TSs. Therefore, the range, wide range (new) and fuel zone relief valve failurea if the conditian s (new)] require,in effect, shutdown could have prevented the fulfillment _of_.s Commission's staffyropges to / - action intervals similar to those safety function and redundant determine that the abovd proposed s changes do not involve a significant-currently required in the Peach Botton equipment was not operable.%e h:zards consideration. TS: or (3) involve a significant reduction proposal also complies with the ) De. licensee also proposes - in a margin of safety because the guidance of GL 83-43 which requests surveillance and operability proposed change would permit deletion of licensee event reporting requirements covering the addition of monitoring of rector water level by three requirement from the licanse. two new reactor water level recorder, diverse instrument systems and the De Commission has provided as pcrt cf NtJREG-0737 requirements combined surveillance requirements and guidance conceming the application of (Il F2) The request revises the LCOs meet the requir ents currently the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by licensee's original proposal covering specified in the Pear i attom TSs-providing certain examples (48 {17' these II.F.2 recorders dated Febmary 11, Accordingly, the Cou. mission proposes 14870). One of the examples (util of 1982. The licensee's original proposal to determine that this change does not actions not likely to involve a significant was noticed in the Federal Register on involve a signficant hazards hazards consideration relates to consideration. changes that make a license conform to October 28.1983 (48 FR 49591) but was LocalPublic Document Room changes in the regulations, where the not acted upon by the staff since it location: Government Publicatmns license change results in very minor constituted an outstanding item. The licensee's revised request would change Sectwn. State Library of Pennsylvania, changes to facility operations clearly in the present TS requirements for the Education Building. Commonwealth and keeping with the regulations.The narrow range reactor water level guage Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, proposed charyytto conform to 10 Cli (Table 3.2.F) by increasing 'he LCO Pennsylvania. 50.72 and 50.77 affect only reporting shutdown provisions for one inoperable Morneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner, requirements and do not affect facility Jr.,1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., operations. channel from 7 days to 30 days, and for two ineperate channels from 48 hours to ,s Therefore, since the changes make the g . p, , days. However, to compensete for this license conform to changes in the f l Sange. the licensee proposed to Philadelphia Electric Compnay, P regulations and do not affect plant .rengthen the LCO action statements Service Electric and Cas Compan, aperations, the proposed changes are for the wide and fuel range reactor Delmarva Power and Light Compa% ncompassed by example (vii) of actions ( water level instruments. The licensee and Atlantic City Electric Company, sot likely to involve significant hazards had originally proposed the following Dockets Nos. 50,277 and 50-278, Peach considerations and on tha t basis the

i

}I ection statements covering the wide and Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units Commission's staff proposes to fuel range monitors in its February 11, Nos. 2 and 3, York County, Pennsylvania determine that the requested changes do ' 1982 applications: with one channel Date of amendment request: January. not involve a significant hazards consideration. inoperable. no shutdown required and 4,1985. with both channels inoperable, Description.of amendment request: LocalPublic Document Room shutdown would be requird in 30 days. De amendments would make the locotion: Government Publications The licensee now proposes to strengthen reporting requirements in the Technical Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, these LCOs for the new monitors in the Specifications (TSs) consistent with 10 education Building. Commonwealth and following ways: For one inoperable CFR 50.72 and 50.73 in response to Walnut Streets. Harrisburg. channel, shutdown would be required in Generic Letter No. 83-43, " Reporting Pennsylvania. 30 days if both narrow range monitors Requirements of to CFR Part 50, il 50.72 Attorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner, are operable and 7 daye if one narrow and 50.73 and Standard Technical Jr.,1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., range monitor is inoperable; for both Specifications", dated December 19, Washington, D.C. 20006. channels being inoperable, shutdown 1983. NRCBmnch Chief: John F. Stolz. wm.ld be required in 7 days if both Basis forpmposedno significant Philadel his Deic CompanI'any,lic P Pub narrow range monitors are operable and hazards considentwa determinatwn-Service Electric and Cas Comp 48 hours if one narrow range monitor is The licensee states that the proposed Delmarva Power and Light Company, inoperable. revisions and deletions to the TS "" AIla

Pany, The Commission's staff has reviewed P porting Requirem=nts reflect the

,g N 8P Bo h the above amendment request revisions to I 50.72 and the addition of Atomic Power Station. Unit No. 3, York concerning 11 F.2 and has determined i 50.73 to the Commission a regulations, that should this request be implemented. and these revisions conform to the -County, Penna #ania it would not: (1) Involve a significant Standard Technical Specifications Date of amendment request-January j increase in the probability or enclosed in Generic Imtter No. 83-43. 7,1965. l consequences of an accident previously The revisions would:(1) Add the Description of amendment request-evaluated because new safety-related definition of Reportable Events to the The requested amendment to the Peach reactor water level recorders will be, Definition rection 1.0, (2) Delete the Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, dded to the TS surveillance g prompt ' ad 30-day reporting Operating license was submitted in .equirements providing additicnal specificadon since these requirements support of the upcoming Cycle 7 core indicators of reactor water levels and.jV have been superseded by to CFR 50.72 reload.%e proposed changes would and 50.73, and (3) revise the incorporate the maximum everage ( therefore, additional surveillance \\

8000 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27,1985 /. Notices' plinar linear heat generation rate Portland General Doctric Company, Portland eneral D' ctric Company et. ' MAP 1J1GR) versus planar average Docket No. 50-344. Trojan Nuclear al Docket No. 56-344, Trojan Nuclear e

posure curves for fuel Type Plant, Columbia County, Oregon Plant, Columbia County, Oregon li ns ates in sac m Date of amendmentreguest Date ofamendmentreguest:lanusty submittal that these newJuel assemblies November 29,1964.

14,1985. cre not significandy diilerent from those Descriptionofamendmentrequest - Description ofamendment

uest, previously found acceptable by the NRC he application for amendment requests %e amendment request was su mit f:r operation in UnM. Ifeddition, a r

- modification of the Technical in response to NRC Generalletter 83-37 review of the licensee's application and Specification contained in Appendix A which was sent to alllicensees of accompanying evaluation indicates that to Operating License NPF-1 in order t {c there are no significant changes being revise the number of reactor coolant rat e i cations for proposed to the acceptance criteria for loops required to be in operation in equipment added or modified as a result the Technical Specifications (TSs) and that the analytical methods used to Mode 3 (the reactor coolant system hot of post-TMI safety improvements demonstrate conformance with the 'Isa reactor shut down). Specifically, the approved by the Commission in Trojan Technical Specifications NUREG-0737. Specifically, the and regulations are not significandy chinged from those previously found currently require that a minimum of one amendment request provides new# technical specifications for the ccceptable by the NRC for Unit 3. reactor coolant loop be in operation containment high-range area rada' tion during Mod 3. ne amendment would I Basisforproposedno significant Aa' zards considemtion determination require that an additionalloop be in monitors (NJPEG-0737 Item H.F.1.3); i operation during Mode 3 (f any control post-a.;cident monitoring systems for i Ths Commission has provided guidance rod drive mechanisms are energized. noble gases and radiciodine for the for determining whether a proposed ( cmendment involves a significant ne change wodd require operation containment, the auxiliary building, and I the condenser air ejector, and noble gas hazards consideration (48 FR 14870). Anconsistent with the plant safety analysis radioactivity monitors for the main r extmple of amendment that is not likely for bank rod withdrawal from the 3 to involve a significant hazards subcritical condition, which assumes steam lines (NUREG-0737 Item H.F.1.1); ri the containment water level monitors consideration is "(iii) * * *, a change that two reactor coolant loops are in (NUREG-0737 Item H.F.1.5); and the new / resulting from a nuclear reactor core operation. sulfur dioxide detectors for the control a d reloading. if no fuel assemblies Basisforpmposedno significant room ventilation system (NUREG-0737 significantly different from than found hazards consideration determination: ltem fU.D.3.4). c previously acceptable to the NRC for a The Commission has pro'ided guidance ne new technical specifications ir v

• vious core at the facility in question concerning the application of standards would require this new equipment to be rt involved. This assumes that n for determining whether a significant operable and to be periodically tested.

re s flcant changes are made to the hazards consideration exists by Basis forpmposedno significant 1; u acceptance criteria for the technical providing specific examples.Th hazards consideration determination: de . specifications, that the analytics!

• xamples of actions involving no The Commission has provided guidance ne l methods used to demonstrate sigmficant hazards consideration g

g I conformance with the technical inchide: (ii) Changes that constitute an standards for making a no significant hc specifications and regulations are not ' additional limitation or restriction or hazards consideration determination by Tt l i significantly changed, and the NRC has ' control not presently within the S providing certain examples (48 FR N co l previously found such methods techmcal specification e.g., a me. 14870). One of the examples of an actiBn s t* ccciptable". ,/ stringent surveillance reoa'.cment. not likely to involve a significant sig l hantds consideration is (11) A change \\ The Comnission's staff considers the ne changes prop.ed in this by ' i proposed TSs change accompanying the application for amendment are M that constitutes an additionallimitation, k // 1 41 Unit 3 reload to be similar to example encompassed by this example because restriction. or control not presently I ins (iii) since the fuel to be inserted into the of the additionallimitation and /{ included in the technical specifications: / cor l core for Cycle 7 is similar to that used in restriction that would be added by this For example a more stringent adi previous Unit 3 reloads and that the \\ Technical Specification amendment. surveillance requirement." The proposed .Sp' nuclear design and analysis of the Cycle technical specifications for the items act 7 reload has been performed with x Therefore. since the application tor discussed above match this example / Tec methods and techniques which have 'arnenhWavolves's proposed change because they all represent new an be:n used in previous reloads and found that is similar to an example for which requirements for equipment operability anc to be acceptable. Based upon the above, no signif; cant hazards consideration and testing not currently includedin the cha the staff proposes to determine that the exists, the staff has made a proposed technicalspecifications ' core requisted changes involve no significant determination that the application for Based on the foregoing. the sign hizards consideration. amendment involves no significant Commission proposes to determine that pres LocalPublic Document Room hazards considerations. the application for amendment does not pres location: Government Publications LocalPublic DocumentRoom I""* *I "III'* Section. State I.ibrary of Pennsylvania. location:Multnomah County I.ibrary, considerations. "' h***'d*

• 'h E

Educc. tion Building. Commonwealth and 801 SW 10th Avenue. Portland, Oregon. LocalPublic Document Room (BPI Walnut Streets. Harrisburg. Attorneyforlicensee:J. W. Durham. location: Multnomah County I.ibrary, g Pennsylvania. Senior Vice President. Portland General 801 SW.10th Avenue. Portland Oregon. type

• ttorney for Licensee: Troy B. Conner, Electric Company,121 SW., Salmon Attorneyforlicensee:J.W. Durham.

I 47 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Street, Portland. Oregon 97204. Senior Vice President, Portland General (2) H .ington. D.C. 20000. NRCBmnch Chief: James R. Miller. Electric Company,121 S.W. Salmon chan NRCBmach Chief lohn F. Stols. Street, Portland. Oregon 97204. NRCBronch Chief:]ames R. Miller.

Fed;rni R: gist:r / Vol. 50. No. 39 / Wedn:sday. February 2F.1985 / Notians SBK Power Authority of the State of New me allurgically bonded to the laside Description of amendmentroqueak "ork. Docket No. 50-333. lames A. surface of the Zircalloy-2 fuel cladding. He amendment request was initially zPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. This feature is expected to reduce the noticed on August 23.1983 (48 FR 3a419). swego County, New York probability of pellet-clad interaction fuel This notice includes changes requested Date of amendmenorequest: January failures. The Barrier fuel design has 13,a subsequent submittal dated August in been incorporated into the current .1984. The amendment would mvise Description of amendment request; revision of the General Electric Report. the testing requirements for hydraulic The proposed amendment would revise.- " General Electric Standard Application shock suppressom (saubbers).The j, the Technical Specifttatens (TS), as . I r Reactor Fuel." (NEDE-24011-P-A-8 proposed changes were made in reponse necessary, to support the current Reload April.1983) and has been determined by to an NRC request. dated November 2a 6/ Cycle 7 reactor refuelin8 The table the NRC to be acceptable.De change 1980, to upgrade the testing requirement from one hundred. mil to eighty-mil for all safety related snubbers to ensume channels apusents a return to initial a higher degree of operability.The n e en I ce re vr e Exposure"in section 3.1 of Appendix A. con channel &mdouN change 6 changn ko@ Cla% 6e

• nd Fi "re 31-2 " Operating Limit channel thickness results in a slightly frequency of visual inspections, stating 8

MCpR \\.ersus Tau for a11 Fuel Types different fuel bundle response during a the requirements for functional testing of have been revised to reflect the loss.of-coolant accident (LOCA) in the snubbers which visually appear i transient analyses performed for the high exposure range. Consequently. inoperable. including a formula foe the Reload 6/ Cycle 7 core. In addition, different MAPLHGR limits are applied selection of representative sampWsizes. to Reload 6 fuel. Figure 3 5-11. Maximum Average clarifying the testing acceptance criteria. Planar Lmear Heat Generation Rate Since eighty mil channels have been and reviang the method of snubber (MAPlJiGR) \\ ersus Planar Average used successfully at Fit 2 Patrick and listing to incorporate more information. Exposure,_ has been added to reflect the extensively on other plants similar in Basisforproposedno signiffasne new fuel currently being loaded. Figures core and fuel design to FitzPatrick, this hazards considemtion determinadent does not represent a significant change. The Commission has provided guidance ,h3 ,'[*,n efeted from Additionally, the analytical methods concerning the application of these 3 8 used to demonstrate conformance with Appendix A because the fuel types standards by providing certain x the Technical Specifications and examples (48 FR 14670). One of thei associated with these figures will be regulations are described in the above l f lk l l discharged from the core during the which has been reviewed and approved, /examp es o actions referenced General Electric Report a significant hazards consideration cu ent te oa relates to changes that constitute e propose amen ent a s by the NRC.These methods have not ! additional limitations or restriotions in ' hanges changed significantly from the methods l the Technical Specifications.The an o e abo e-e tio ed isions These changes (on pages vil-used for pavio'is reload subminalsMe, proposed changes revise sections of the changes represented by addition of the ' Technical Specifications related to ' the e$r ". o i d I ec nt el at d req ire d a dition Basis forpmposedno significant '"[,E," testing, and to incorporate operability. h es wh el ate hazards considention determination: i" '

• 4*"'*0

4*b"'"'*' de the requirements for references to deleted flgutes associated The Commission has provided guidance with fuel types being discharged from chariges upgra concerning the application of the the core and add references to the newly hydraulic snubbers, the staff proposes to standards for determining whether a included figure are clearly. determine that the application does not significant hazards consideration exists administrative in nature and are inv aa cant hams by providing certain examples (48 FR therefore encompassed by example (1). consideration. 14870).The examples of actions Based en the foregoing, the Loca/Mc Document Roam involving no sigmficant hazards Commission proposes to datermine that locahon: White Plains Public kibrary, consideration include:"(1) A puraly the proposed license amendment does 100.Martine Avenue, White Plains. New administrative change to Technical not involve a significant hazanfs York 1060L , Specifications For example, a change to consideration. A ttorney for licensee: Mr. Char!es M. schieve consistency throughout the LocalPublic Document Room Pratt.10 Columbus Circle. New York. Technical Specifications correction of location: Penfield 1.ibrary. State New York 10019. an error. or a change in nomenclature." University Co!!ege of Oswego. Oswego. NRCBranch Chief Steven A. Varga. and "liii) for a nuclear power reactor, a New York. Power Authority of the State of New change resulting f om a nuclear reactor Attorneyforlicensee: Mr. Charles M. York. Docket No. 50-286. Indian Point cora reloading. if no fuel assembbes Pratt. Assistant General Counsel. Power Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New significantly different from those found Authority of the State of New York.10 York previously acceptable to the NRCfor a Columbus Circle. New York, New York previous core at the facihty in question 10o19. Date of amendment request: April 13. are involved." NRCBmach Chich Domenic B. 1982, as supplemented August 31.1984. Use of a single new type of fuel Vassallo. Description of amendment request: (BPDRB299) is planned for the current 'Ihe amendment would revise the. rel:ad. This fuerdiffers from the fuel Power Authodty of the State of New Technical Specifications related to types presently in use at FitzPatrick in York. Docket No. 50-286. Indian Point degraded gnd voltage conditions by: two respects: (1)It is a Barrier type, and Unit Nw 3. Westchestee County, New Adding relay set points. time delays,

• lit is fitted with eighty.milthick fuel York testing intervals and calibration nnels rather than the one hundred-Date of amendmentraqueste intervals for the 4a0V Emergency Buses;

, channels previously used. The November 24.1981. as supplemented increasing the setting limit for the 4aaV I tiarner fuel design has a zirconium layer August 13.1964. Bus IJndervoltage Ralay; and coquiring

~.... .. i g ~J 8002 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesday. February 27, 1985 / No ices mcedures to prevent an automatic fuse consideration determination by involve a significant hazard 2 - 1sfer of the 6.9 KV Buses. The providing certain examples (48 FR consideration. aposed changes were made in 14870). One of the examples (ii) of LocalPubhc Document Room i response to an NRC request to provide actions not likely to involve a significant ' location: White Plains Public Library. protection for the degrades! grid voltage hazards consideration relates to a 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New ) condition. , change that constitutes an additional N York 10601. Basis forproposedno significant l limitation, restriction, or control not i A ttorney forlicensee: Mr. Charles M.- \\ hazards consideratioadeterminatione q presently included in the Technical ' Pratt,10 Columbus Circle, New York, r The Commission has provided guidance i Specifications: For example, a more New York 10019. I concerning the applica[I6ns of these, i stringer.t surveillance requirement.The NRCBmnch Chief:Stesen A.Varga. i standards by providing examples (48 FR t staff proposes to determine that the 14870).One of the examples of actions 4 proposed changes do not involve a. Public Servica Electric and Gas J n;t likely to involve a significant k significant hazards consideration since Company, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-hrzards consideration relates to \\ they entail additional restrictiona 311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, chinges that constitute additional ' designed to make the Technical Unit Nos.1 sad 2. Salem Ccunty, New / limitations or restrictions in the Specifications more stringent. Jersey [ Technical Specifications. The proposed LocalPublic Document Room j Date of omendment request: p , chrnges revise sections of the Technical location: White Plains Public Library. September 21.1984. s* Specifications that relate to the 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New Description of amendment request: digraded grid voltage condition to York 10001. j These proposed changes would add clarify existing requirements and Attorney fo.- h.eensee: Mr. Charles M. g include additional requirements and Pratt,10 Columbus Circle, New York, specifications for accident and radiation monitoring to provide assurance that the tisting. Since the requested changes New York 10019'hief: g monitoring equipment installed at the upgrade the requirements for the NRCBmach C Steven A.Varga, g degraded grid voltage condition. the facility is operated and maintained g stiff proposes to determine that the Power Authority of the State of New within acceptable limits. This proposed cpplication does not involve a York, Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point change is the result of a review of significant hazards consideration. Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New NUREG-0737 Technical Specifications P LocalPubh DocumentRoom York guidance provided in NRC Generic C c location: White Plains Public Library, Date of amendment request July 6. Letter 83-37 ang an aggitiona3 request g 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New 1983, as supplemented December 3,1984. (Varga to Uderitz, dated November 17, York 10601'forlicensee: Description of amendment request. 1983) for Technical Specifications for h ) ittorney Mr. Charles M. The amendment proposes changes that ICCI equipment. The Noble Gas Effluent t.10 Columbus Circle. New York, provide for redundancy in decay heat Monitors and Containment high range 3, .w York 10019. removal capability in all modes of Area Monitors are added to ensure that NRCBranch Chief Steven A.Varga. operation. The proposed changes were the monitors, installed m compliance Tl I P:wer Authority of the the State of New made in response to an NRC request with NUREG-0737 requirements, are Te York, Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point that the licensee provide long. term operable in the appropriate MODES and g Unit No. 3 Westchester County, New assurance that redundancy be receive proper surveillance attention. rd ' York maintained. ne changes provide that: Specifically the changes would add g, At least two decay heat removal paths Noble Gas Effluent Monitors and iy Date of amendment request: are available when the reactor coolant Containment high range Area Monitors co' l December 29,1983, as supplemented system Tavg is below 350 *F, at least to Specification 3.3.3.0, Radiation ch September 7,1984 one reactor coolant pump or RHR pump Monitoring Instrumentation and Description of amendment request is operating when the reactor coolant Specification 3.3.3.9. Radioactive ma The amendment request was initially system Tavg is below 350 *F but not in Caseous Effluent Monitoring ha. noticed on August 22.19M (49 FR 33369). the refueling operation condition, and at Instrumentation tables, as appropriate g This notice includes changes requested least one reactor coolant pump is Remove from Unit No.1 only, item 2.a. Co in a subsequent submittal dated operating when the reactor coolant Fixed Filter Iodine Monitor from Table i sy, September 7,1984, that supplement and, system Tavg is grea ter than 350 *F. 3.3-6 and 4.3-6 and simplify, by cross co; in some cases, supersede the changes Basisforproposedno significant references, these tables for both units. initiIlly proposed.The purpose of this hazards consideration determination: The format and ACTION cor amindment is to upgrade the Technical The Commission has provided guidance STATEMENTS of Technical cor Sp:cifications to make them at least as concerning the application of these Specification 3.3.3.7 Accident reg cha ! stringent as the Standard Technical standards by providing examples (48 FR Monitoring Instrumentation, for Salem Specifications for Westinghouse 14870). One of the examples of actions Unit No. 2 would be modified to agree 3,,, equ Pressurized Water Reactors (NUREG-not likely to involve a significant s with the format and Action Statements 0452).This change request is in response hazards consideration relates to - used on Unit No.1. Limiting Conditions pro' Cor to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's changes that constitute additional \\ for Operation and Surveillance litter dated july 7,1980, which indica'ed limitations or restrictions in the Requirement for the following accident con i cv:r thirty (30) sections of the current Technica; specifications. The proposed monitoring instrumentation would be star

det, T2chnical Specifications that need changes revee sections of the Technical included in Tables 3.3-11a,3.3-11b, and upgrading to be at least as stringent as Specifications. elated to the redundancy 4.3-11 for both units: Containment ac,j Sigt the Standard Technical Specifications.

of decay heat removal systems to clarify pressure--wide and narrow ranges,

Fed,

osisforproposedno significant Ntheir operating procedures. Since the containment water level-wide range. the i rds consideration determination: requested changes upgrade the and core exit thermocouples. that Commission has provided guidance requirements for decay beat removal Basis forproposedno significant in th concerning the application of the . procedures, the staff proposes to hazards consideration determination: char' st ndards for a no significant hazards determine that the application does not The Commission has provided guidance

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesday February 27, 1985 / N;tices 8003 concerning the application of the facility operations clearly in keeping conform to referenced examples in 48 str.ndards for o No Significant Hazards with the regulations. FR 14870, we have determined that this stermination by pcviding examples of Based on the above, and since the proposed application for amendment etions not hke') nvolve a proposed change involves actions that involves no significant barards Significant HazanConsideration in the conform to the referenced example in 46 consideration. Fedcral Register (48 FR 14870). One of FR 14870, we have determined that this LocalPublic Document Room application for amendment involves n the examples (ii) relates to changes that significant hazards consideration. [ . location: Salem Free Library.122 West constitute additionallircitations, Broadway, Salem New Jersey 08079. restrictions. or contrt>1s1not presently r LocalPublic Document Room e Attorneyforlicensee: Conner a7n included in the technical specifications. location: Salem Free Library,122 % est Wetterhann, Suite 1050,1747 ' The new specifications requested Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079. s Attorneyforlicensee: Conner and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., constitute such an addition. Based on the above, since the Wetterhann. Suite 1050.1747 Washington, D.C. 20006. proposed changes involve actions that Pennsylvania Avenue NW., NRCBmnch Chief: Steven A. Varga, conform to the referenced example in 48 Washington, D.C. 20006. MMdd ud Gas i FR 14870 we have determined that this NRCBmnch Chief: Steven A.Varga. application for amendment involves no Public Service Electric and Gas 311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station. Significant Hazards Consideration. Company, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-Unit Nos.1 and 2 Salem CountCNew F LocalPublic Document Room 311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, y,,,,y location: Salem Free Library.122 West Unit Nos.1 and 2, Salem County, New Broadway. Salem, New Jersey 08079. Jersey Date of amendment request: i December 7,1984. Attorneyfor licensee: Conner and Date of amendment request: October Wetterhann. Suite 1050.1747 ' Description of amendment request: 26.1980 Pennsylvania Avenue. N.W~ Description of amendment request: %e proposed amendment request would Washington, D.C. 20006-The proposed amendment would revise add to section 4.6.3.1.2 (Containment NRCBranch Chief: Steven A.Varga. section 6.0 Administrative Controls, to Systems). a surveillance requirement to Public Service Electric and Gas incorporate a change in Nuclear reflect the 60* open Umitation on the Company, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-Department organization. Shift Containment Pressure. Vacuum Relief 311. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Complement clarification. Station valves VC5 and VC6 for both Salem Unit Nos. I and 2. Salem County, New Operation Review Committee (SORC) Units and remove the footnote added by membership, quorum requirements, and Amendment 12 to Salem Unit 2, page 3/4 Jersey responsibilities. Additionally, replace 6-15* Date of amendment request: the Nuclear Review Board (NRB) with 0####I##E"P ##!"# #". September 21,1984. section 6.5 2. Nuclear Safety and hazards considention determination-Description of amendment request: Review, arid add section 6.5.3, Technical De proposed amendment request is The proposed change would revise Review and Control. admirustrative in nature in that it Technical Specification, section 3.6.4.1. Basis forproposedno significant constitutes an additionallimitation or Hydrogen Analyzers surveillance hazards consideration determination: requirements. The existing Hydrogen This proposed change is administrative control (Surveillance Requirement) not Analyzers are being replaced with a in nature in that it provides an improved presently included in the Technical i type quahfied for use in the organization, clarification of shift Specifications.Re Commission has containment.The new type requires a coverage, adds a new full-time safety provided guidance concerning the change is surveillance testing per review concept (which has the effect of application of the standards for a no l manufacturer's specifications. improving the effectiveness of SORC significant hazards determination by Basis forproposedno significant Reviews and makes more efficient use providing examples of actions not likely hazards consideration determination: of technicalexpertise available). to involve a Significant Hazards The replacement of the existing %e Corrgnission has provided Consideration in the Faderal Register (48 Containment Hydrogen Monitoring guidance concerning the application of FR 14870). One of the examples (ii) System with one qualified for use in the the standards for a No Significant relates to changes that constitute an containment assures the operator of a Hazards determination by providing additional control not presently continuous ind. cation of the hydrogen examples of actions not likely to involve included in the te'chnical specifications. concentration in the containment as a significant hazards consideration in / Based on the above, and since the required by NUREG-0737. The license the Federal Register (48 FR 14870). One f proposed change involves an action that change in required to ensure that this of the examples (i) relates to purely conform to a referenced example in 48 ! f equipment. installed to conform with the administrative changes.This proposed FR 14870, we have determined that th,is I latest NRC requirements, is tested change is basically a shifting of properly to demonstrate operability.%e administrative responsibilities and k \\ proposed application for amendment Commission has provided guidance improves the qualitative and sinvolves no significant hazards / i consideration. f-concerning the application of the quantitative effectiveness of.the review standards for a No Significant Hazards function. Another example (ii) relates to. LocalPublicDocument Room determination by providing examples of - changes that constitute an additional 1 location: Salem Free Library,122 West q actions not likely to involve a control not presently included in the ' Broadway Salem, New Jersey 08079. Significant Hazards Consideration in the technical specifications. This proposed Attorneyforlicensee: Conner and Federal Register (48 FR 14870). One of change adds a Technical Review and Wetterhann, Suite 1050,1747 4 the examples (vii) relates to changesN Controls section that more clearly Pennsylvania Avenue,NW., that taake a license conform to changes N defines review responsibilities. ./ Washington, D.C. 20006. in the regulations, where the license Based on the above, and since the NRCBranch Chief: Steven A.Varga. change results in very minor changes to, proposed change involves actions that O

l I, 80M Federal R;gister / Vol. 50. No. 39 / Wedn;sdny, F;bmrry 27, 1965 / Notices' L t PubIlc Service Electric and Gas amendment; therefore, no inerease in Public Servim Co. of Colorado, Docket Company, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 56-the probability or consequences of any No. 50-267. Fort St. Vrain Nuclear 'tl, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, previously evaluated accident, and no Generating Station, Platteville, Colorado ) { sit Nos.1 and 2, Salem County, New possibility of any new accident not ,4rsey previously evaluated. Based on the Date of amendment requestr }anuary Doto of amendments requeste January above, the staff proposes to determine 14,1985. l that this amendment request does not D@hogendet 6 i 18,1985. Descngtion ofomendments request involve a signficant hazards The proposed change to the l The requirements of the10,CFR Part 50, consideration. Administrative Contmle Tednical-e Appendix ! rulemaIEg a ere LocoIPublic Document Room Specifications (TS) reflects recent implemented in license Amendment locatiord Salem Free Ilbrary,122 West organizational changes within the Public Nos. 59 and 28 for Salem Units 1 and 2. Broadway, Salen, New Jersey 08079. Service Company of Colorado.The'IS respectively. These amendments changes involve revising position titles ellowed 45 days for fullimplementation Attorneyforlicensee: Conner and (e g, " Radiation Pmtection W naFer" to of the specifications. The 45 day period Wetterhann. Suite 1060,1747 " Support Services Manager" and pennsylvania Avenae, NW., " Manager, Production. Fuela and was erroneous in that it did not allow sufficient time to complete the Washington, D.C. 20006. Services Division" to " Manager, sigmficant techm, cal. admirustrative and NRC Bmnch Chief: Steven A. Varga. Production Services Division") the,. trrining edorts involved in the change-PubHc Service Co. of Colorado, Dodat addition of a new position (Exequhve cvtr of the large number of procedures No. 5tW67. Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Staff Assistant) to the organizaBonal related to 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix ! Generating Station, Platteville, Colorado chart and the corporate safety review requirements. This proposed committee membership, and changing cmendment request would revise Date ofomendment reguest. the position to which the Training December 31 1984 Supervisor reports. ens Dpl Oa d en Description of amendmentrequest: Bo f po no si ni t2 Facility Operating Ucense DPR-75 to The pmposed change to the Technical provide an additional 60 days for Specifications pmvides clarification that The Commission has provided guidance implementation sach that Item 3 of these only gamma radioactivity is monitored concerning the application of these amendments is changed to read as by the installed activity monitors. This standards by providing certain follows: 3. This license amendment is clanfication consists of inserting the g sffictive on issuance and shall be word gamma prior to the words of actions that are considered not likely implemented no later than 105 days " activity monitors" in Specifications to invo1ve signific hazards citeris.suance-ELCO 8.1.2, ELCO &1.3, and ESR 8,1.2. consfderations in e a pure y Bosisforpwposedno significtmt Basisforproposedno significant. admirustrative change to Technical onis considention deteimmation: hazards considention determination: Specifications For enample, a change to I[ .e staff proposes to make a detzrmination that the amendments The Commission has provided guidance achieve consistency thmughout the ( concerning the application of these Technical Specifications, correction of request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission a standards by providing certain an error, or a change in nomenclature. re2ulations in to CHt 50.92, this means examples (48 FR 14870). De examples Based on an initial review of the that operation of the facility in of actions that are considered not likely application, the staff considers the to involve significant hazards proposed changes to be administrative eccordance with the proposed considerations include a purely changes of the type referred to above. smendments would not:(1) Involve a administrative change to Technical %erefore, we propose to determine that sigmficant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously Specifications: for example, a change t this is an action which would involve no es aluated; or (2) create the possibility of achieve consistency throughout the significant hazards considerations. a new or different kind of accident from Technical Specificatfor.s, a correction of 7,,,jpg3fj,pggy,,,,go,, cny accident previously evaluated; or (3) an error, or a change in nomenelature. locotion: Greeley Public Ub , City invo a si cant reduction in a - The pro sed changes to the I I Complex Building. Greeley* orado. Technical Specifications will not after O'Donnek b Se pany of The 10 CFR 50' Appendix ! rulemaking the equfpment being used nor the specifically addressed the definition of a peration of that equipment, and only Colorado, P.O. Box 640 Denver, Colorado 80201. criterion of"As Low As Reasonably g[nuou ! mon to ng NR Bmnch Gef Edc R Joboa Achievable"(ALARA) and set effluent e limits based on doses to the population radicactivity ofl! quid effluent releases. Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, surmunding nuclear power plants. Since Since the actual operations will not be Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear the existing radiological technical f affected by this change, the staff Power Plant Wayne County,New York specifications are at least sa roposes to determine that this action i

1. #I""

conservative, or more conservative thaV**volves no significant hazards thi Appendix 1 specifications contained "'Id'#80 ""* in Amendment 59 Facility Operating LocoIPublic Document Room Description ofomendment request-Ucense DpR-70 and Amendment 28 to locotton: Greeley Public Ubrary, City The proposed amendment to the Facility Operating Ucense DpR-75, Complex Building, Greeley, Colorado. Technical Specifications would delete deferralof theimplementation of these Attorneyforlicensee:Bryant the description of the battery charger cmendments would not involve a O'Donnell, Public Service Company of configuration, because it superfluously ' ction in a margin of safety.Further, Colorado. P.O. Box 640, Denver. describes originally installed equipment. i are no procedural or physical plant Colorado 80201. Requirements for battery charging j capecify and operability remain - . ages involved in this proposed NRCEmnch Chief: Eric R }ohnson. unchanged. M 6

l Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 1985 / Notices 8005 Basis forproposed no significant accounting and nucleat material control removal schedule for the Rancho Seco 'razards considemtion determination: The amendment wculd not alter in any material surveillance capsules from the By letter dated December 5,1984, the way the Rancho Seco safeguards Davis-Besse reactor vessel 15 Table i hcensee requested phanges to the Ginna provisions required 1 y NRC regulations. 42.1 containing the current capsule Technical Specification; to eliminate %e termination provision of License removal schedule will be deleted. The specific charging capacity values for Condition 2.C. (10) provides that the amendment would also delete section individual chargers while retaining the IAEA program be terminated as of the 4.7.8 and revise the Bases section to 250-amp charging capapity for each c date of such a notice from the NRC.That delete redundant information and to-e battery to maintain the batteries in the notice was provided to the licensee in a provide a better desuiption of the full charged condition.The planned letter dated June 1,1964, and Reactor Vessel Surveilliance Program. upgrading of the battery charging units accordingly, the IAEA insepction Basisforpmposedno significarsi during the 1985 Spring refueling outage program was terminated at that time. hazards considemtwn determinabare provided an opportunity to delete the Therefore, the proposed amendment The withdrawal schedule in the unwarranted description of the would delete e license condition that is proposed amendment was developed in j originally installed units rather than no longer in effect. accordance with the 1982 edition of substitute similar arbitrary descriptive Basisforpmposedno significant information for the new units.This is an borords considemtion determination: ASTM E 185 and provides a better administrative change to the Technical The proposed amendment would only defined removal schedule for g Specifications. delete a license condition that is no surveillance capsules basad otr The Commission has provided longer in effect and would not affect accumulated neutron fluet ce rather than guidance concerning the application of plant operation or design. Therefore, the on the basis of refueling cyde. nus, any the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by proposed amendment would not change in the nominal cycl i time will providing certain examples (48 FR 14870. Involve a significant increase in the not greatiy influence the Apnl 6.1983). One of the examples (i) of probability or consequences of an characterization of reactor vessel actions not hkely to involve a significant accident previously evaluated; or (2) material condition as a fm.ction of hazards consideration is a purely create the possibility of a new or accumulated neutron fluence.Re admmistrative change to technical different kind of accident from any original removal schedule was specifications: For example, a change to j accident previously evaluated; or (3) developed in accordance with the 1973 achieve consistency throughout the T involve a significant reduction in a edition of AST 4 E 185. Appendix H to margin of safety. Based on the foregoing. 10 CFR Part 50 F.ovides for the use of technical specifications. correction of a 1 -rcr, or a change in nomenclature. the NRC staff proposes to determine ASTM E 185-82 in the material gl j Bewuse the change proposed here L( that the proposed amendment does not surveillance program.%e revised-woulJ merely delete unnecessary involve a significant hazards removal schedule will not reduce the descripJve material and would not consideration. effectiveness of the Reactor Vessel effect battery charging and operability LocalPublic Document Room requirements, the proposed change is location: Sacramento City-County Surveillance Program. administrative in nature and falls within Ubrary,828 I Street, Sacramento, %e Commission has provided example (i) of actions not hkely to California. guidance concerning the application of' involve significant hazards Attorneyforlicensee: Daivd S. the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 by considerations. On that basis. the staff Kaplan, Sacramento Municipal Utility providing certain examples (48 FR preposes to determine that the request District. 6201 S Street, P.O. Box 15830, 14870). None of these examples are j involves no significant hazards Sacramento, California 95813. appl cable to the proposed amendment. considerations. NRCBmnch Chief: John F. Stolz. The proposed amendment relates only Sacramento Municipal Utility District, to a materials surveillance program and l a cDocu om f 'I Docket No. 50-312, Rancho Seco does not involve any change in the Avenue, Rochester, New York Nuclear Generating Station, Sacramento facility or its operation. Furthermore, County, CaMornia neither the quantity nor the quahty of l Attorney for licensee: Harry H. Voigt. the information obtained from the Esquire l.eBoeuf Lamb,Leiby and Date of amendment request June 27, MacRae.1333 New Hampshire Avenue, 1984, amended on December 24,1984. surveillance program la reduced.The NW.. Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. Description of amendment request:In change also is within all acceptable 1976, as a result of damage to reactor criteria with respect to the program 20036. NRC Bmnch Chief: John A Zwolinski, vessel surveillance capsule holder tubes specified in the Standard Review Plan. Chief. near the reactor vessel wall at the The proposed amendment, therefore, Rancho Seco Nuclear Generation meets the requirementa specified in to b ih

strict, Station, the Rancho Seco reactor vessel CFR 50.92(c) for an amendment which surveillance capsules were installed in does not involve a significant hazards ho D k huclear e ing Station, Sacramento the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, consideraiton.

un y, a Unit 1. surveillance capsule holders. LocalPublic Document Room Date of amendment request October Since the Davis-Besse reactor design is locofion: Sacramento City-County 9.1984 similar to the Rancho Seco reactor Library, e28 I Street, Sacramento, Description of amendment request de:Ign, radiation damage to the Ranch Californi** The amendment would delete Facility Seco reactor vessel materials installed Attorneyforlicensee: David S. Operating Ucense Condition 2.C. (10) in the Davis.Besse reactor can be used Kaplan, Sacramento Municipal Utility i relating to the U.S./ International Atomic to provide radiation damage information District 6201 S Street P.O. Box 15830, Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards for the Rancho Seco reactor vessel Sacramento, Cahfornia 95813. program. Under this program, the The proposed amendment would hncho Seco facility was subject to modify the Rancho Seco Technical NRCBmach Chief: John F. Stolz. IAEA inspection of nuclear material Specifications (TSs) by addin6 a revised

) i : 8006 Fed;r:1 Rigi:t:r / Vol. So, No. 39 / Widnesd:y, Febru~ry 27, 1985 lNdicYs South Carolina Electric & Cas Company, open flow paths out of containment requirements are most properly outlined South Carolina Public Service Authority, remains a requirement and the design by Regulatory Guide 1.140, " Design. ' locket No. SM95, Virgil C. Summer basis continues to be met, or (2) create Testing and hiaintenance Criteria for aclear Station, Unit 1, Fairfield County, the possibility of a rew or different kind Normal Ventilation Exhaust System Air auth Carolina of accident from any accident previously Filtration and Adsorption Units of Ught-Date of amendment request evaluated because the physical plant Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants." November 29,1984. design is not being changed and the The requested revision to the Technical Descnption of amendmentrequest amendment still allows for purge and The amendment would add a note to the exhaust isolation on high containment Specifications does not decrease the hieh containment faToaFtivity signal for radioactivity in Modes 1 through 4. A!so-protec tion of the public in the eventBITi co'ntainment purge and exhaust isolation it wW not (3) involve a sigmncant design basis fuel handling accident because the Technical Specifications in Technical Specification Table 3.3-0, '*hC

n mal im requ re for c nunue to ensum eat the rigorous Engm, eered Safety Feature Actuation

,g System Instrumentation. The note containment pressu-ization during tesung requkemenu oMegdatory would state that purge exhaust monitor which the exhaus:Imes are closed and Guide 1.52. Revision 2 March 1978, not required when purge exhaust is an alternate channel sensing high " Design. Testing and hiaim. nance radiation inside containment which Criteria for Post Accident 2ngineered-closed: forproposedno significant Basis exists to provide a purge exhaust Safety-Featurt Aimosphere Cleanup hazards consideration determination: isolation signal. Accordingly, the System Air Filtration and Adso n When the plant is operating in hfodes 1 Commission proposes to determine ~at Units of Ught. Water-Cooled N lear through 4. the six-inch mini-purge this change does not involve a Power Plants," are completed prior to i system is needed at times to increase significant hazards consideration. and during use of the system for its ESF containmc nt pressure to comply with Loco / Pub //c Document Room function. Technical Specification limits. This location: Fairfield County Library pressunzation is accomplished by Garden and Washington Streeta. 'Ite Commission has provided certain kreping closed the values in the mini' W nnsboro, South Carolina 29180. examples (48 FR 14870) of actions likely j purge exhaust line and pumping air into Attorneyforlicensee: Randolph R. to involve no significant hazards containment through the mini-purge Afahan, South Carolina Electric and Gas. considerations. The request involved in supply line. (Technical Specifications Company P.O. Box 704, Columbia, this case does not match any of those limit the total amount of time trie South Carolina 29218. examples. Ilowever, the staff has isolation valves in the mini. purge NRCBranch Chief: Elinor G. reviewed the licensee's request for the Adensam. above amendment and has determined South Carolina Electric 5 Gas Company, that should this request be implemented. urs per 365 da i s

• ssurization mode, no open exhaust South Carolina Public Servica Authority, it will not: (1) Involve a signih, cant leads out of containment to the Docket No. 54-395 Virgil C. Summer increase in the probability or i

. side environment. Because all Nuclear Station, Unit 1. Fairfield County, consequences of an accident previously, exhaust imes are closed one of the South Carolina evaluated because the system design r diation monitors used to sample Date ofamendment request; will n t change and will continue to be containment radiation is isolated. December 14,1984. tested for operability before it is relied The radiation monitor in question Description of amendment request: Upon as an ESF system (2) create the provides one of two (2) isolation signals The amendment would revise Technical possibility of a new or differet kind of to the mini. purge lines upon detection of high containment radioactivity. In the Specification 3/4 911 " Spent Fuel Pool accident from any accident previously plant configuration described above, the Ventilation System." The revision would evaluated because the system will be v lves in the exhaust line are closed. lf change the Technical Specification to tested to ensure that it egntinues to during pressurization leakage occurs require certain surveillance testing only perform its ESF functions as originally when the system is being used in an intended, or (3) involve a significant through the closed valves, the radiation engineered safety features function. reduction in a margin of safety because monitor could detect radioactivity and Basisforproposedno significant the licensee will continue to provide an isolation signal. Diversity in hazards consideration determination: demonstrate operability of the system the parameters sensed for containment The spent fuel pool venti'ation system at isolation continues to exist, including the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station by performing the required surveillance high containment pressure and the has two (2) distinct functions. These activities before allowing it to serve as various other parameters sensed for functions consist of being an engineered an ESF system. Accordingly, the safety injection system actuation, safety feature (ESF) system to mitigate Commission proposes to determine that The Commission has prcvided certain the offsite radiological consequences of th a change does not involve a examples (48 FR.14870) of actions likely a fuel handling accident and roviding a significant hazards consideration. to involve no significant hazards filtration / ventilation system or the fuel Loca/Public Document Room considerations The request involved in handling building, hot machine shop and location: Fairfield County Library, this case does not match any of those excess liquid radwaste area during Carden and Washington Streets, examples. lfowever, the staff has normal plant operation.The usual Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180. reviiwed the licensee's request for the operatin function of providing filtration above amendment and has determined for the a ove listed areas represents a Attorneyforlicensee:Randolph R. that should this request be implemented, portion of the licensee's commitment to Mahan, South Carolina Electric & Cas it will not:(1) Involve a significant ALARA, and is not rsquired to meet 10 Company, P.O. Box 764, Columbia, incre:se in the probability or CFR Part 100 criteria. The proposed South Carolina 29218. nquences of an accident previously change recognizes that during periods of NRC Branch Chief: Elinor G, iated because the monitoring of normal plant operation, the testing Adensam. e 4

r Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesday Tebruary 27, 1965 / Nodces 8007 i' = South Carolina Elec"ic & Gas Company, accident previously evaluated because Attorneyforlicensee:Randolph R. South Carolina Public Serdce Authority, the physical plant design is not being Af ahan, South Carolina Electric & Gas i Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C, Summer changed. Also,it will not (3) involve a Company, P.O. Box 784, Columbia, Nuclear Station, Unit 1. Fairfield County, significant reduction in a margin of South Carolina 29218. South Carolina safety because all snubbers on systems NRCBmnch Chief Ehnor G. l required for safe shutdown / accident Adensam. Date of amendment Iequest: mitigation will be operable including M Calife Edison Company 4 November 16,1983, as amended safety and non-safety related snQbbers al., Docket Noa. 50-361 and 50-362, San December 14,198,1 ~. on systems used to protect the code ' Onofre Nuclear Generating Station-~ " Description of ameldn, wegues boundary and to ensure the structural Unita 2 and 3. San Diego County, The amendment would revise Technical integrity of these systems under Cdid Specification 3/4.7.7 "Smibers," and its dynamicloads. Accordingly,the Date of Amendment Request March 2 bases to indicate that all snubbers on Commission proposes to determine that systems required for safe shutdown / this change does not involve a and Apri! 2,(Reference PCN 131). accident mitigation shall be operable. significant hazards consideration. Description of Amendment Request: The amendment would then delete LocalPublic Document Room The proposed change revises Technical Technical Specification Tables 3.7-4a. location Fairfield County Library, Specification 3/4.3.3.8 " Radioactive " Safety-Related Hydraulic Snubbers." Garden and Washington Streets. Liquid Effluent hionitoring Instrumentation." Technical.pr,. and 3.7-4b," Safety.Related hiechanical Winnsboro, South Carlina 29180. Snubbers.- Attorneyforlicensee: Randolph R. Specification (T.S } 3/4.3.3.8 defines Basis forproposedno significant hf ahan, South Carolina Electric a Gas operability requirements for bczceds considemtion determination: instrumentation used to motutor Company, P.O. Dox 761. Columbia, releases of radioactive hquids, periodic The origmal request of November 16. i South Carolina 29218. 1983, was noticed in the Federal Register testing required to verify operability and NRCBmnch Chief Elinor G. actions to be taken in the event that the 149 FR 7042) on February 24,1984. Adensam. Responding to Generic Letter 84-13. " Technical Specifications for Snubbers." South Carolina Electric & Cas Company, ca t em 'i the licensee revised its origmal request South Carolina Public Service Authority The proposed change revises T.S. 3/ by letter dated December 14,1984. This Docket No. 50-393 Virgil C. Summer (318 to. J revision was substantial enough t Nuclear Station, Unit 1. Fairfield County,

1. All W the use f pumps other than i

require renoticing the requested South Carolina the circulating water pumps to provide As stated in Generic Letter 84-13 the Date of omendme~nt request dilution of radioactive liquid efiluents. arrendment. November 29,1984, and supplemented

2. Allow liquid effluents from certain snubber listing currently found in Technical Specifications is not January 8,1985 release paths to be diverted to other J

r.ecessary, provided Technical Description ofomendment request portions of the liquid radwaste system Specification 3/4.7.7 specifies which The amendment would add a new when the associated liquid effluent snubbers are required to be operable. Technical Specification 3/4.8.4.3 monitor is inoperable as an alternative j Techr.ical Specification 3/4.7.7 is, regarding requirements for circuit to the current requirement to analyze therefore, being revised to indicate that breakers for non-Class 1E cable, grab samples if releases are to continue. all snubbers on systems requred for safe Bosis forproposedno significont

3. Delete the current hmitations on the shutdown / accident mitigation shall be hazards considemtion determination:

period for which compensatory operable. 'Ihis includes safety and non. Operabihty and surveillance measures can be taken when safety related snubbers on systems used requirements for circuit breakers for radioactive liquid effluent monitoring to protect the code boundary and to non. Class 1E cables located in cable instrumentation la inoperable, to ensure the structuralintegrity of these trays which do not have covers and eliminate an inconsistency in the systems under dynamic loads. which provide protection for cables that technical specifications. Therefore, the requirement regarding if faulted could cause failure in two or Basis for PropesedNo Significant scubbers found in Technical more adjacent, redundant Class 1E Hazards Considemtion Dettanination: Specifications is not being changed and cables are being added to Technical The Commiss# has provided guidance is consistent w. 5 the NRC guidance Specifications. The Commission has concerning the application of standards stated in Generic L *ter M-13. provided certain examples (48 FR 14870) for determining whether a proposed The Commission has provided certain of actians likely to involve no significant license amendment involves a significant hazards consideration by examples (48 FR 14870) of actions likely hazards considerations. One of the x to invche no significant hazards examples (ii) relates to a change that \\providing certain examples (48 FR considerations. The request involved in constitutes an additionallimitation. 14870)of amendments that are this case does not match any of those restriction, or control not presently considered not likely to involve examples. However, the staff has included in Technical Specifications. significant hazards considerations. reviewed the licensee's request for the TLe amendment involved here is similar / Example (1) relates to a purely above amendment and has determined to this example in that it adda / administrative change to the technical that should this request be implemented, requirements for some non-Class 1E / specifications: For example a change to it will not: (1) Involve a significant \\ cable circuit breakers. Accordingly, th'e achieve consistency throughout the increase in the probability or \\ Commission proposes to determine that technical specifications, correction of an consequences of an accident previously this change does not involve a error, or a change in nomenclature. evaluated because the Technical signifinnt hazards consideration. Example (vi) relates to a change which Specification requirements regarding Loca/ Public Document Room either may result in some increase to the snubbers remain unchanged, or (2) locotion: Fairfield County Library, probability cr consequences of a create the possibility of a new or Garden and Washington Streets, previously. analysed accident or may different kind of accident from any Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180. reduce in some way a safety margin, but c 1 w l.

i 3 8008 Fed:r'l R: gist:r / Vcl. 50* Na' 39 f W;dnbsdry' F.brufiy 27 '2985' /' Notices where the results of the change are effluent release path and the required staff proposes to determine that the clearly within all acceptable criteria radioactive liquid effluent monitors are change does not involve a significant "ith respect to the system or component inoperable. Both Actions 29 and 30 hazards consideration. l cified in the SRP. The changes currently state that the release of Loca/Public Document Roca mized above are similar to example radioactive effluents via a pathway with location: Sam Clemente Library. 242 ti) or example (vi) of (48 FR 14870) and inoperable monitors may continue Avenida Del Mar. San Clen ente. thus it is proposed that thg changes do provided that grab sampics are analyzed California. not involve a significant hazards periodically for gross radioactivity. Attorneyfor/icensec Charles R. consideration.The following is a more The proposed change would revise Kocher. Esq., Southern California Edison detailed descriptionc!.eakh of the three-Actions 29 and 30 of T.S. 3/4.3.3.8. to Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue. r Items listed above and a description of exphcitly allow isolating the release P.O. Box 800. Rosemead. California how each is similar to the examples of pathway and diverting the radioactive 91770 and Orrick. lierrington a Sutcliffe. (48 FR 14870). effluent flow to the liquid radwaste Attn: David R. Pigott. Esq.,800 Specific Changes Requestedand treatment system for processing as Montgomery Street. San Francisco. BasesforProposedNo Significant liquid radwaste. This proposed change California 94111. Hazards Determinationfor each: would explicity allow the steam

1. Allow use of pumps other than the generator blowdown and the turbine NRCBranch Chief: George W.

Knighton. circulating water pumps to liquid building sumps radioactive liquid Tennessee Valley Authority. Dog, effluent dilution. effluents to be processed in the same T.S. 3/4.3.3.8 currently requires that at way as liquid radwaste from other Noa. 50-259. 50-260 and 5G-296, strogns leist one circulating water pump must sources. The existing Actions 29 and 30 Ferry Nuclear Plant. Units 1,2 and *,. be operating and providing dilution to require g ab samples if releases are 1.imestone County Alabama the circu!atmg water system discharge continued. If releases are not continued. structure whenever dilution is required grab samples are not required. No Date of amendment request: November 19.1984. to meet site radioactive effluent releases are made via the affected concentration. Liquid effluent pathways if radioactive effluent flow is Description of amendment equest concentration limits are specified by diverted to the liquid radwaste system. The amendment would modify the T.S. 3.11.1.1. " Liquid Effluents--- so in this case grab samples would not

• Technical Specifications to delete the Concentration."In addition to the be required. Since this action could be requirement for the condenser low circulatmg water pumps. which provide taken within the bounds of the existing vacuum sr. ram function. Approval of the cooling water for the condenser when proposed amendment would eliminate -

the plant is operating. there are other Actions 29 and 30. the proposed change. the need to reduce power during periods merely formalizes this alterntive in the / j of high river water temperature. l pumps (e g.. the saltwater cooling technical specifications. Therefore. the[ /. Basisforpreposedno significant pumps) which are also capable of proposed change is editorial and is 4 ' viding dilution of liquid effluents. similar to Example (i). hazards considemtion determinationt proposed change replaces the

3. Deletion of Time Limits in Effluent The Commission has provided guidance cific reference to circulating water Action Statements.

concerning the application of standar6 Monitoriniicability of actions to be by providing examples of actions, hat pumps with "all pumps required to be The app providing dilution in order to meet site taken when radioactive liquid effluent are not likely to involve a significant r:dioactive effluent concentration monitoring instrumentation is hazards consideration (48 FR 14870). limits." This non-specific reference to all inoperable is limited to a specified One example of actions not likely to pumps will allow use of pumps other period (e.g. 30 days). If effluent release involve a significant hazards than the circulating water pumps (e g., continues beyond this period, even c nsideration fuchange which either the saltwater cochng pumps) as long as while continuing to imple ucnt the may resuhr,imn Meg the site effluent concentreon limits specifiedbyTEMI.far7m compensatory measures specified by the PJotrability or consequences of a 1 action, because of the time limit, this [ofreduce in some way a safety margm previously analyzed accident or m e This chanae is similar to examM(vi)action would be outside of the bounds ut J f(48 FR 14870)in that although it N the T.S. and would therefore invoky where the results of the change are allows the use of pumps other than the Specification 3.0.3. T.S. 3.0.3. wou)d clearly within all acceptance criteria,) circulating water pumps to provide require that action be tak en to flate a with respect to the system or component liquid effluent dilution and this may plint shutdown. T.S. 3/4.3.3.8 h s an specified in the Standard Review Plan result in an increase in the probability of edception to Specification 3.0.3 - (SRP). / + a previously analysed accident. it accordance with which, at the e of the The basis for the turbine gofidenser nevertheless is still within all acceptable sxisting actior time tunit. It woul low vacuum scram is to provide an \\the requirements of10 CFR 20, w ' h'etjinterpreted that no additional actiojQ e criteria in that the facility will still me anticipatory scram tp rfduce peck required. The 3.0.3 exception conflicts NRressure inJhsLeesctor vessel caused are specified in T.S. 3.1 with the time limits in the actions. The onlyly a turbine trip on low condenser 2.Did M0nTfP uents to the liquid proposed change removes the time limits vacuum. Without theanticipatory scram i ridwaste system in lieu of grab thereby eliminating the existing conflict. at 23 inches of mercury vacuum on simpling. The proposed change will continue to decreasing condenser vacuum, the main Acting 29 of T.S. 3/4.3.3.8 specifies the require reporting of effluent monitoring turbine would receive a tri cetions to be taken if effluents are being instrumentation inoperabilities of inches of mercury vacuum.p at 21.8 His trip released via the steam generator greater than 30 days duration and signal would cause the turbine stop blowdown effluent release path or either continuedimplementation of the i valves and control valves to close. of its bypass lines and the required specified compensatory measures. Initiating a scram in less than one r:diorctive liquid effluent monitors are Because this change achieves second. While the reactor was mrable. Action 30 provides the consistency within the technical scramming. there would also be an is to be taken if effluents are being specifications. It is similar to example (i) increase in reactor vessel pressure sed via the turbine building sump of (48 FR 14870). On this basis, the NRC because ofisolation of the main 4

i a Federal Register / Vol. SO, No.-39 / Wednesday -Febrhary'27.1985'/ Noliths '8009 condenser from the reactor.This The Commission has provided guidance action statement requires immediate pressure rise would normally be limited for the application of the standards in 10 suspension of waste gas additions to the by automatic opening of the turbine CFR 50.92 by providing certain examples system and restoration of oxygen bypass valves. For.the purposes of (48 FR 14870) of actions likely to involve concentsations to within the h'miting _ conseratively analyzing turbine trip no significant hazards considerations. condition for operation. Actio.2 b is transients (ref: FSAK Chapter 13. " Plant One of the examples relates to:"(i) A required whenever gas concentrations Safety Analyses"). no credit was taken purely administrative change to exceed both the limiting condition for for either the condenser low vacuum Technical Specifications: For example, a operation and the concentrations scram or operauen if the turbine bypass change to achieve consistency through-applicable for Action a. Previounty:the valves. Deletion or nonoperation of the out the Technical Specifications, concentrations given for applicability for condenser low vacuum switches may correction of an error, or a change in Action b were inconsistent with the increase the reactor vessel peak nomenclature." Another example (ii) of limiting condition for operation. pressure resulting from a turbine trip actions invohing no significant hazards ne licensee's letter of November 1. l and thereby reduce a margin of safety. consideration is a change that 1984, does not affect any other part of However, since no credit is taken for constitutes an additionallimitation, the proposed amendment and does not that scram function this change would restriction, or control not presently change any of the description of the meet the acceptance criteria of SRP included in the Technica! Specifications. amendment published in the November section 7.2," Reactor Trip System." Changes (1) and (2) correct i 22,1983, or May 23,1984 notices. nerefore the proposed amendment is typographical and editorial errors and Basisforproposedno si#gicant are thus encompassed by example (i1.* 1 encompassed by an example for which hazards considemtion determination: no significant hazards are likely to exist, Change 3 is an additional control and isNue previous basis for the proposed the staff proposts to determine that the , thus encompassed by example (ii). amendment as corrected still applies (48 proposed amendment does not invoh.: a / Since all of the changes to the FR 52838 and 49 FR 21847). significant hazards consideration. Technical Specifications given in the / I,ocalPublic Document Room LocalPublic Document Room three areas above are ecompassed by an location: Athens Public I.ibrary, South example in the guidance provided by the ' location:Ualversity of Toledo Library, I Documenta Department,2801 Bancroft I and Forrest Athens, Alebama 35611. Commisson of actions not likely to 5 Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 43c06. Attorney forlicensee: H.S. Sanger, Jr., qvolve a significant hazards Esquire. General Counsel, Tennessee consideration, the staff has made a-Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Charnoff, Esq., Shaw, Pittman. Potts. \\ alley Authority 400 Commerce pioposed determination that the and Trowbridge,1800 M Street. N.W., i Avenue, E 11B 33C, Knoxville, application for amendment involves n Wa shington, D.C. 20038. Tennessee 37902. sigmficant hazards consideration. NRCBranch Chief: John F. Stolz. ~ NRC Bmnch Chief Domenic B. LocalPublic Document Room I Vanallo. location: Athens Public Library, South no Toledo Edison Company and the Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket and Forrest, Ath, ens, Alabama 35811, Cleveland Electric Illurninating I Nos. 50-259,50-260 and 50-296, Browns Attorneyforhcensee: H.S Sanger, Jr., Company. Docket No. 50-346, Davis-l Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1. 2 and 3 Esquire General Counsel,Tenncssee Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No,.1, t Limestone County, Alabama Valley Authority,400 Commerce Ottawa County, Ohio l Avenue. E 11B 33C, Knoxytlle, 1 Dcte of amendment req: est: Tennessee 37902. Date of amendment request: November 20,1984. December 21,1984, NRCBranch Chief: Domenic B. Descnption of amendment request: Vassallo. Descriphon of amendment request. The proposed amendment would modify The proposed arrendment would add a the Technical Specifications as fo' lows: ne Toledo Edison Company and the requirement for operability of a reactor (1) The basis for Secifications 3.7.A Cleveland Electric Illuminating coolant system vent path from each and 4.7.A would be changed to indicate Company, Docket No. 50-346, Davis-reactor coolant system loop and from that the green position indicating lights Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, the pressurizer. In the event one or more for the drywell. suppression chamber Onawa County, Ohio of these paths become inoperable, the vacuum breakers are lit when the valves Date of amendment request: March 16, inoperable paths must be restored to are "less than 80 degrees" open.The 1979 revised by letters dated December operability or the unit shutdown existing figure of 30 degrees is a 23,1982 July 13,1983 (Item 2), August 18, specified timd intervals. The proposed typographical er or (Units 1 and 2 only). 1983 (Item 6), March 15,1984, and amendment includes a required (2) Specifications 3.8.C (LCO and November 1,1984. surveillance at least once each 18 basis) and 4.8.C would be revised to Description of amendment request months.The proposed Technical indicate that there is more than one The proposed amendment regarding Specifications would be applicable mechanical s acuum pu :.p; " pump" Radiological Effluent Technical when the plant is in operational modes would be changed to " pumps", and Specifications was the subject of 1,2, or 3. The application is in response "hne" to " lines",(There are two half. previous notices published in the to NRC Generic Letter 83-37 which size mechanical vacuum pumps for each Federal Register November 22,1983, at requested that such Technical unit as described in the FSAR section 48 FR 52836 and May 23,1984, at 49 FR Specifications be proposed by all 11.4.) This change corrects an editorial 21847, Subsequent to those notices, an operators of pressurized water reactors.

error, error was noted in the proposed Basisforpmposedno significant (3) Specification 6.3 would be Technical Specifications relating to the hazants considemtion determination:

expanded to include a new requirement action statement associated with the The reactor coolant system high point (,' for preparation of written procedures to limiting condition for operation for vents have been installed in accordan :e limit shift overtime.nis change would explosive gas mixtures in the waste gas with item 11.B.1 of NUREG-0737, implement NUREG-0737 Item I.A.1.3. system.The licensee's letter of " Clarification of 30 Action Plan Basis forproposedno significant November 1,1984, corrects proposed Act Requirements" and as required by hazards considemtion determination: b in Specification 3.11.2.5. The corrected Commission regulation to CFR

8010 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesday, FeLroary 27,1965/ Notices 44(c)(3)(iii). These high point vents restrictions would be added pertaining when these operationallimits are not installed to vent any noncondensible to degraded grid voltage, and such met. o which might accumulate and inhibit eestrictions are presently not addressed (b) U.F.1.4-Containment Pressure s core cooling under natural circulation or in the Vermont Yankee Technical Monitor-%e proposed changes define reactor coolant. Specifications. the instrumentation and calibration ne Commission has provided herefore, since the applicationfor requirements for the containmert guidance concerning the a,pplication of amendment involves proposed changes pressure monitor and also actions the standards of 10GFR Sp.92 by t-similar to an example for whichno required when these operationallimiti-providing certain examples (48 FR significant hazards consideration exists, are not met. 14870). One of the examples of actions the staff has made a proposed (c) U.F.1.5-Containment Water Level involving no significant hazards : determination that the application Monitor-De proposed changes define consideration relates to a change that involves no significant hazards the instrumentatien and calibration constitutes an additionallimitation. i t consideration. requirements for the containment water restriction. or control not presently i LocalPublic Document Room level monitor and also actions required included in the technical specifications. location: Brooks Memorial Library,224 when these operadonallimits arstiot The high point vents are required to be Main Street, Brattleboro, Vermont 05301. met. , installed by Commission regulation: Attorneyforlicensee: John A. (d)ILF.1.6-Containment ilydro thtrefore incorporation of the proposed Ritscher, Esquire. Ropes and Gray,225 Monitor-%e proposed change vide techmcal specification requirements Franklin Street. Boston. Massachusetts limiting conditions for operation (LCO) represent additional controls not 02110. and surveillance requirements for the presently m, cluded, and thus the - NRCBmach Chief: Domenic B. Hydmgen/ Oxygen Monitor. proposed amendment fits this example. yassallo. (e) II.D.3.4-Control Room Accordingly, the Commission proposes liabitability Requirements-ne to determme that the requested Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power proposed changes provide limiting e amendment involves no significant Corporation Docket No. 50-271, conditions for operation and - hazards consideration. Vemiont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, surveillance requirements for the LocalPublic Document Room Vernon, Vermont Control Room Toxic Gas Monitoring location: University of Toledo Library' l>ocuments Department,2801 Bancroft Date ofopplication foramendment: System. Avenue. Toledo. Ohio 43606. December 14,1984. He modincations to Technical Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Description of amendment request: Specifications in response to the above Charnoff, Esq.. Shaw. Pittman. Potts. The proposed amendment requests a TMI Action items requirements i Trowbridge.1800 M Street. NW revision to the Technical Specifications constitute additional limitations, nshinFton. D C. 20036. pertaining to the following TMI Action restrictions or controls not presently NRCBmnch Chief: John F. Stolz. Plan Items set forth in NUREG-0737, included in the Vermont Yankee " Clarification of hil Action Plan Technical Specifications. nerefore, the Vermont, Yankee Nuclev Power Requirements" and as requested by the proposed changes are similar to the Cerporation, Docket Nc. 50-271, staff's Generic letter 83-36: Commission's example (ii) above. Vsrmont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. Varnon,5 ermont II.F.1.3-Containment liigh-Range Thuefore, we pmpose to determine il at ' i Monitor the requested changes will not involve D. ate of applicationfor amendment: H.F.1.4-Containment Pressure Monitor significant hazards considerations. November 2,1984. II.F.1.5-Containment Water level Descriptwn of amendment request latwn: Bmoks Memorial LWrary,224 yngg, f ne proposed amendment would add Main !Areet, Brattlebom, Vermont 05301 H ntalmnent Hydmgen Monitm Attorneyforlicensee: John A. Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) and Surveillance Requirements II.D.3.4-Control Room liabitabihty Ritscher, Esquire Ropes and Gray,225 pertaining to degraded grid voltage Requirments Franklin Street, Boston, Massachusetta protection to the Technical Basis forpropog-dno sigm'ficant 02110. Specifications. Such testrictions do not hazards considemtion determination: NRCBrsmch Chief:Domenic B. now exist in the Technical The Commission has provided guidance Vassallo. Specifications. for the application of the standards in 10 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Basis forproposedno significant CFR 50.92 by providing certain examples horards considemtion determination: (48 FK ' 1870) of actions likely to involve Corporation, Docket No. S)-271, The Commission has provided guidance no sigmficant hazards considerations. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, concerning the application of the One of the exa;pples relates to:"(li) A Vemon, Vennont ~ hange that constitutes an additional Date of applicatioa for amendment-stIndards for determining whether a c s significant hazards consideration exists limita tion. restriction, or control not ' january 15,1985. by providing certain examples (48 FR ! presently included in the Technical i Description ofomendment request-14870). The e.xamples of actions which i Specifications: For example. a more ne proposed amendment requests a involve no significant hazards \\ stringent surveillance requirement." ' change to the Administrative Controls Technical Specification changes j section of the Technical Specifications consideration include a change that t constitutes an additionallimitation, \\ proposed in response to n0 Action / to provide alternative requirements restriction, or control not presently Plan items ILF.1.3.11 F.1.4. H.F.1.4. / should the Operations Supervisor not included in the Technical Specifications: II.F.1.6 and H.D.3.4 are as follows: / possess a Senior Operator License for s er example, a more stringent (a} ILF.1.3-Containment liigh-Range an interim time per.od. veillance requirement Monitor--ne proposed changes define Basis forproposedno significant The changes proposed in this the instrumentation and calibration baronis considemtion determination epplication for amendment are yquirements for the containment high The Commission has provided guidance sncompassed by this example because range monitor and actions required for the application of the standards In to

V Federal Register'/ Vol. 50, No. 39 / W' dnesday, Februar'y 27, 1985 / Notices 8011 e CFR 50.92 by providing certain examples for NRC review and approval which been added te ti s present sampling (48 FR 14870] of actions likely to involve reflects changes to reporting locations. Adcitionalmanagerialreview no significant hazards considerations. requirements. In addition, minor responsibilitien and reporting One of the examples is "(i) a purely editorial and typograhical errors are - requirements would be added relatin8 o t administrative change to Technical corrected. radioactive releases. Specifications: For exa*mple, a change to Basis forpmposedno significant ne NRC staff hes issued previously achieve consistency throughout the hcrards considemtion determination: its proposed determination that the Technical Spe* = ticias, correction pf The Commission has provided guidance earlier versions of these amendment-e an error, or a change in nomenclature." concerning the application of the requests did not involve a significant The proposed change would maintain standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing hazards consideration (48 FR 38382 at the organization shown in Figure 6.1.2. certain examples (48 FR 14870). One of 38430 August 23,1983 and 48 FR 52804 The proposed change would allow the the examples (ii) of actions not likely to at 52840, November 22.1983). i flexibility to permit the Assistant involve a significant hazards nis newest version of the proposed Operations Supervisor to provide consideration is a change to make the amendments addresses NRC staff j instructions to the shift crews invoking licenses conform to changes in the comments on previous submittals.The licensing activities should the regulations where the change results in staffs comments were transmitted to the Operations Supervisor not have a Senior very minor changes to facility licensee by letter dated luly 18J984. Operator License. In this case, the operations clearly in keeping with the The newest version of theseppoposed Assistant Operations Supervisor would regulations. ne NRC initial review of amendments submits the proposed be a licensed Senior Operator and have the licensee's submittal related to Technical Specifications as a completely qualification in accordance with ANSI reporting indicates that this is the case. new section, adds several new N18.1-1971. " Selection and Training of Another example (i) of actions not likely specifications such as total dose and personnel for Nuclear Power Plants." to involve a significant hazards explosive gas mixture specifications and Since the level of training and the consideration is a purely administrative makes several other additions and requirement for a Senior Operator change to Technical Specifications; for J revisions to address staff comments. License for the Operations Supervisor example, a change to achieve Basisforpmposedno significant function is fulfilled as described by the consistency throughout the Technical hazards considemtion determination: Assistant Operations Supervisor, the Specification, correction of an error, or i The Commission has provided guidance change is admtmstrative since there is change in nomenclature. The remaining concerning the application of the only a change in nomenclature when the changes fallinto this category, standards by providing certain Assistaat Operations Supervisor Accordingly, the Commission proposes examples (48 FR 14870). One of the assume; the Operations Supervisor to datermine th,at this amendment does examples of actions involving no fuention in the Technical Specifications not involve a sigmficant hazards significant hazards considerations and, therefore. the change is similar to consideration. relates to additionaltimitations-l example (i).Therefore, we propose to LocalPublic Document Room restnctions or controls not presently ~ determine that the requested changes location: Swem Library, College of incleded in the techncial specifications will not mvolve significant hazards William and Mary, Williamsburg. ( i). In the case of the proposed technical considerations. Virginia 23185. e s LocalPublic Document Room Attorney for licensee: Mr. Michael W. specifications, they constitute an. ~ location: Brooks Memorial Library,224 Maupin, Hunton and Williams, Pos}/ additional requirement for monitoring and control of radioactive effluents not Main Street, Drattleboro, Vermont 05301. Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia Attorneyforlicensee:JohnA. 23213. l presently in the technical specifications / and are intended to meet the intent of Ritscher, Esquire Ropes and Gray,225 NRCBmnch Chief; Steven A.Varga. the Commission's regulations (10 CFR Franklin Street, Boston, Massachusetts Wisc nsin Electric Power Company, Part 50 Appendix I.10 CFR 50.34a. and 02110' Bmnch Chief Domenic B' Docket Nos. 50-268 and 50-301, Point 10 CFR 50.36a] and related staff-NRC Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2, guidance (NUREG-0472) Therefore, the Vassallo' Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc staff proposes to determine that the Virginia Electric and Power Company, County, Wisconsin proposed amendments do not involve a Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Date of amendment request: June 4, significant hazards consideration. Power Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2, Surry 1976 as modified January 28,1980 LocalPublic Document Room County, Virginia October 7,1983 # nd December 20,1984. location: Joseph P. Mann Public Library, Date of amendment mquests: Description of amendment request: 1515 toth Street.Two Rivers Wisconsin. November 30,1984. The proposed amendments would Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Description of amendment requests: permit operation after approval of Charnoff, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts and By NRC Generic Letter 83-43 to all changes to the plant's Technical Trowbridge,1800 M Street, N.W., licensees. model Technical Specifications (TS) that would bring - Washington, D.C. 20036. Specifications were forwarded which them into ccmpliance with Appendix 1. NRCBmnch Chief: James R. Miller. showed the revisions to reporting 10 CFR part 50, and 10 CFR 50.38a and Wisconsin Electric Power Company, requirements as necessitated by 50.34a. 'Iliese proposed 'IS are intended Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point ll 50.72 and 50.73 of Title 10 of the Code to ensure that releases of radioactive u lear at Unit e and 2., of Federal Regulations. Section 50.72 material to unrestricted areas during ,B,,e ag,c,g revises the immediate notification normal operation remain as low as is requirements for operating nuclear reasonably achievable. Specifically, the County, meconsin power plants. Section 50.73 provides for proposed TS define limiting conditions Date of amendment request: October a revised Licensee Event Report System. for operation and surveillance 26,1984. By letter dated November 30,1984, requirements for radioactive liquid and Description of amendment mquest: seous effluent monitoring. Additional The amendment request would delete a Virginia Electric and Power Company, e submitted proposed license amendments environment sampling locatiorjs have limiting condition for operation

3012 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27. 1985 / Nouces concerning the auxiliary feedwater generator for inspection is permissible. .1. Low Steam Ceneration Pressure -tzm. Specifically, the limiting This specification has been rewritten to (Steam tJne Rupture Matrial 'ition for operation which allows acknowledge that strict compliance with

2. Pressarizer 14,el (Remote Elmtdown) porarily shutting discharge salves of Appendix IV to section XI of the ash 4E snzred auxiliary feedwater pumps to a Code would prohibit utilization of state-

3. Steam Generator Presenre (Remote unit when necessary to supply auxiliary of.the-art inspection techniques not ye!

Shutdown) feedwater to the other unit for purposes recognized by the Code.The

4. Pressurizer level {Pos t.AccIdenQ

• of stzrtup, shutdown or sucyeillance specification has also been revised to

5. Steam Generator Outlet Pressww ttsting (provided thatthe Sher unit's r acknowledge that reporting be in (Post-Accident) turbine driven ausiliary feedwater pump accordance with to CFR 50.73.11 rather

6. Startup Feedwater Flose wrs operable) would be deleted.

than the superseded LER mporting

7. Power Operated Relief Valve The amendment also would modify.

specification. The basis for this section steam generator inservice inspection have also been rewritten to make it Date ofpublication ofindividuol notice in Federal Register: January 14. r quirements under specification consistent with the specificahons and - M FR M ' 15.41A. " Steam Generator Tube our current practices. Item 3 of page L imtion date ofindividualmotm.e: P, Inspection Requirements". Item 2.a of 15.6.10-1 has also been changed to this specification would be charged to conform to present terminology. Based February 13.1985. indicate that selection of one steam on the above, the staff proposes to LocalftiblicDocument Room =, generator for inspection is permissible. . determine that the amendments involve location: Crystal River Pubhc IEry, item 3 of this specification would be no significant hazards considerabons. nos N.W. First Avenue. Crystal River, rewritten to acknowledge that strict LocalPublic DocumentRoom Florida. compliance with Appendix IV to section location: Joseph P. Mann Public Library, IX of the ASME Code would prohibit 1516 Sixteenth Street.Two Rivers. Power Authority of the State of New utilization of state-of.the. art inspection Wisconsin. York. Docket No. 50-333, James A. techniques not yet recongized by the Anornerforlicenseet Gerald MtzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. Code. Item 7 of the specification would Charnoff. Esq., Shew. Pittman Potts and Oswego County, New ) ark be revised to acknowledge that Trowbridge.1800 M Street NW, Date ofamendment request; reporting be in accordance with to CFR

• hin on a'mes R. Miller.

December 6.1984, as supplemented 50.73.u rather than the superseded LER .Rg g january 10,1985. reporting specification. The basis for PREVIOUSLY PUBLISifED NOTICES Briefdescription ofamendmant; this sechon would also be changed to OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE make it consistent with the OF AMENDMENTS TO OPERATING These revisions would permit refueling --acifications. LICENSES AND PROPOSED NO operations to proceed with the Reactor sis forpmposedno significant SIGNIFICANT liAZARDS Protection System inoperable to .rds considemtion determmation: CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION facihtate mstallation of Analog Trip s ue Commission has provided guidance AND OPPORTUNITY FOR IIEARING Transmitter System components during th f th the upcoming 1985 refuehng outage. phish bpyiously Date ofpublication ofindividual '8 anda a by pro di ce in j ~ a ep te 1 examples (48 FR 148 0). One of the '#I*' notices. De notice content was the examples of actions involving no same as above.ney were published as OB4m f significant hazards considerations is individual notices because time did not Spimtion dote ofindividualnotice cxample (v). "Upon satisfactory allow the Commission to wait for this March 6.1985. completion of construction in connection with an operating facility a relief regular monthly notice.They are LocalPublicDocument Room granted from an operating restriction repeated here because the monthly localica: Penfield IJbrary, State thzt was imposed because the notice lists all ar. endments proposed to University College of Oswego,New be issued involving no significan! York. construction was not yet completed hazards consideration. satisfactorily " The proposed For details, see the individual notice Rochestar Cas and Doctric Cw.nA amendment involving deleting a limitin8 condition for operation (LCO) in the Federal Register on the day and Docket No. 30444, R.E. Cinna Nudear page cited. This notice does not extend Power Plant, Wayne County, New York concaming the auxiliary feedwater the notice period of the original rmt2ce Date of amendment request: January system meets this example. The LCO had been imposed as an interim safety Florida Power Corporation, et al. 25,1985. measure until valve actuation Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unli Descriptian of amendment request modifications (automatic alignment No. 3 Nuclear Cenerating Plant, Citrus The proposed amendment would allow j e upon receipt of a signal to start the County, Florida use of temporary closure plate in place i auxiliary feedwater pumps) were Date of amendment request of the equipment door (hatch). I completed. The valve actuation December 14,1984. Date ofpublication ofindividual I modifications have been completed and Briefdesciprion of amendment: The notice in Federal Registar: February T6 I tested and the LCO is no longer needed. amendment would moddy Technical 1985 (50 R 5020). I Another example of actions involving Specification Tables 4.814 3.8, and Lpimfion date ofindividualnota-no significant hazards considerations is 4.3.7. and Technical Specification March 7,1965. example (i) a purely administrative change to the technical specifications. *[ 4 4.3.2.2 to permit waiver of certain 18-Loca1Public Document Room I month calibration fmquency I changes involving steam generator ( requirements for Cycle V provided the f,,,fjoy. Rochester Public Library,115 ~~ South Avenue, Rochester.New York vice inspections meet this example. surveillance is performed duririg Refuel y* specification has been clarilled to V.The specific equipment covered by I indiczte that selection of one steam thi,s request is as followa: i N

l . 1 1 f Federal Register / Vol. So, No. 39 / Wednesd5iy, February 2'7, if 85 / Notices 8013 iuthern California Edison Company, et petition for leave to intervene was filed Ubrary,212 W. Burdeshaw Street, 50-3G1 and 50-362, San Onofre following this notice. Dothan, Alabama 36303. riuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and Unless otherwise indicated the Arkansas Power & Ught Company, Commission has determined that these Docket No.50-368, Arkansas Nuclear 3 amendments satisfy the criteria for One, Unit 2. Pope County, Arkansas Dcte of amendment reCueste July 2, categorical exclusion in accordance August 7 and October 3,1984. with 10 CFR 51.22.Thmfore, pursuant Date of applicctionfor amendment-Briefdescripticadayndments: to to CFR 51.22(b), no environmental June 30,1983, as superseded by letter-e Changes to Technical Specifications 37 linpact statement or environmental dated May 19,1984. 4 2.4. "DNBR Margin" and 3/4.3.1. assessment need be prepared for these Briefdescription of amendment:The " Reactor Protection Instrumentation, amendments. lf the Commisison has amendment revised the Technical and their bases. prepared an environmental assesn'ent Specifications pertaining to hydraulic Date ofpublication ofindividual under the special circumstances snubbers and added new requirements notice in Federal Register: December 31, provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has for mechamcal snubbers operability and 1964 (49 FR 50845). made a determination based on that testing. 4 \\ Expiration date ofindividualnotice: assessment, it is so indicated. Date ofissuance: January 29,1985. January 30,1985. For further details with respect to the Effective date: January 29,198Sg LocalPublic Document Room action see (1) the applications for Amendment No.:62 J* location: San Clemente Ubrary,242 ar,endments. (2) the amendments, and Facility Operating License No. NFF-d Avenida Del Mar San Clemente, (?) the Commission's related letters. Amendment revised the Technical Cahfornia 92612. Safety Evalsation and/or Environmental Specifications. Southern California Edison Company, et Assessments as indicated. All of these Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal al.,50-361 and 50-362, San Onofre items are available for public inspecnon Register-August 22.1984 (48 FR 33353 at Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and at the Commission's Public Document 33356). 3 Room,171711 Street, N.W., Washington-The Commission's related evaluation Date of amendment request: February D.C., and at the local public document of the amendment is contained in a

29. April 2, September it, October 1 and rooms for the particular facihties S.fety Evaluation dated January 29, involved. A cop, of items (2) and (3) 1985.

3.1984. Brief description of amendment: may be obtainer upon request No significant hazards consideration addressed to the U.S. Nuclear comments received. No. Technical Specification changes relating to reactor protection instrumentation Regulatory Commiolon. Washington, LocalPublic Document Room md electrical power sources. D.C. 2055,5. Attention: Director, Division location:Tomlinson Ubrary. Arkansas I Date ofpublication ofindividual of Ucensmg. Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas notice in Federal Register: December 31. Alabama Power Company, Docket No. 72801 i Co ny, ' * 's.P E a te ofindividualrotice: o1E u ton abam o Date of applicationfor amendment: Arkansas Nuctear One, Unit Nos.1 and. LocalPublic Document Room February 10,1984, supplemented June 18, Unit 2 Pope County, Arkansas location San Clemente Ubrary,242 Date of application for amendments: 1984-Avenida Del Mar, San Clemente, Briefde8CT1ption of amendment: Table March 16,1984, supplemented August Cahfornia 92812. 8 8 22,1984. NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF d P G CE SE th al e e e t ns ted 1 During the 30. day period since remaining capsules.'lle change is NUREG-0737 Items: administrative in nature and conforms

1. Reactor Coolant System Vents (II.B.1) publication of the last monthly notice, the Commission has issued the following to the requirements in Appendix 11 to 10

2. Postaccident Sampling (II.B.3) amendments. The Commission has CFR Part 50, which became effective

3. Sampling and Analysis of Plant determined for each of these July 26,1983 (48 FR 24008 May 31.1983).

Effluents (II.F.1.2) amendments that the application Other changes proposed to Tables 3.4-2

4. Containment High. Range Radiation complies with the standards and and 3.4-3 are not acted upon at this Monitor (II.F.1.3) time.

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act

5. Containment Pressure Monitor of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Date ofissuancer lanuary 22.1985.

(II.F.1.4) t Commission's rules and regulations. The Effective dotet January 22,1985.

6. Containment Water Level Monitor i

Commission has made appropriate Amendment No. 48. findings as required by the Act and the facility Operating License No. NPT-2. (II.F.1.5) Commission's rules and regulations in 10 Amendment revised the Technical Date ofissuance: January 31,1985. CFR Chapter 1. which are set forth in the Specifications. Effective date: January 31,1985. license amendment. Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Amendment Nos.:94 and 83. Notice of Consideration ofIssuance of Register April 25.1984 (49 FR 17851) Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-Amendment to Facility Operating The Commission's related evaluation of 51 and NPT-d Amendments revised the Ucense and Propcsed No Significant the amendment is contained in a Safety Technical Specifications. Hazards Consideration Determination Evaluation dated january 22,1985 Date ofinitia/ notice in Federal and Opportunity for Hearing in No significant har.ards censideistion Register: November 21,1984 (49 FR connection with these actions was comments were received. 45941 at 45942). published in the Federal Register as LocalPublic Document Room The Commission's related evaluation indicated. No request for a beanns or location: George S. Houston Memorial of the amendments is contained in a

V i i t \\ 8014 Federal Registor / Vol. 50,'No. '39 [ Wedne'sday,' February 27,1985/ Notices Safety Evaluation dated January 31. Effective date: February 7,1985. Commonwealth Edison Company,, i 1935. Amendment Nos.:81 and 107. Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304, Zion No significant hazards consideration Facility Opemting License Nos. DPR-Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. I and comments received. No. LocalPublic Docbment Room 71andDPR-62. Amendments revised 2 Benton County, Illinois ) location:Tomlinson Library, Arkansas the Technical Spect!ications. 1 Tech University,Russellville, Arkansas Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Date of applicationforamendments: 72801 Registen November 21,1984 49 FR 45943. October 29,1984 7 The Commission's related evaluation. BriefdescriptioTofamendments'-- B:ltimore Gas % Electric Company, of the amendment is contained in a nese amendments add a specification ~ l Dockets Nos. 50-317 and 50418. Calvert Safety Evaluation dated February 7, for reactor coolant system vents and are l Cliff 5 Nuclear Power Plant. Unit Nos.1 1985. consistent with the guidance provided in cod 2, Calvert County, Maryland No significant hazards consideration NRC Generic letter 83-37. Date ofIssuance: February 5,1985. Date ofapplication foramendments: Lo al blcYoc ent Room ElfeMe DateMmaW5.1985. October 11,1984' n of amendments: I# AmendmentNos. 86 and 86 th ho gjt,"fSo thp rt Briefdescriptia The amendments revised the Unit 1 and Unit u y, Facility Openting License Nos. DPR-2 Technical Specifications 4.6.1.2a to North Carolina 28401* 39andDPR-is. Amendmentsped the Technical Specifications. allow completion of the third Commonwealth Edison Company, Date ofinitialNotices in Federal containment Integrated Leak Rate Test Docket No. 50-237, Dresden Nuclear 3egister: December 31,1984 (49 FR (11.RT) prior to the 10-year Inservice Power Station. Unit No. 2, Grundy Inspection (ISI) outage. This TS change County, Illinois 50801)The Commission's related would provide for a "one time only" evaluation of the amendments is schedule change for the third (10-year Date of applicationfor amendment contained in a Safety Evaluation dated s:rvice interval) II.RT. September 11,27 and 28,1984 and February 5,1985. Date ofissuance: February 14,1985. October 2,1984. No significant hazards consideration Effectwe date: February 14,1985. Briefdescription of amendment:The comments received: No 3 Amendment Nos.:98 and 80. amendment authorizes changes to the LocalPublic Document Room ((.#fhg ~ Technical Specifications to support location: Zion Benton ubrary District, Cycle 10 operation of Dresden 2 with 2000 Emmaus Avenue, Zion. Illinois g en the Technical Specifications. rel ad fuel supplied by and the 60099. Date ofiniticlnotice in Federal associated analyses performed by Register: December 31,1984 (49 FR 50794 Exxon Nuclear Company. The Cor.necticut Yankee Atomic Power f 50798). amcndment also authorizes Dresden 2 to Company, Docket No. 50-213 Iladdam The Commission's related evaluation use General Electric hybrid design Neck Plant, Middlesex County, of the amendments is contained in a hafnium control rod assemblies. Connecticut Safety Evaluation dated February 14. provides new limiting conditions for Date of applicationfor amendment ggg-operation and surveillance requirements October 24,1983. ho significant hazards consideration for a newly modified scram system Brie [d88Cription of amendment:.The .~ comments received. No. having improved reliability and changes amendment revises the Technical LocolPublic Document Room the calibration and functional test Specifications to specify that the location: Calvert County Library, Prince frequencies for certain specific minimum shift crew composition for Frederick. Maryland. Instruments that are being modified into Normal Operating Conditions except Carolina Power & Ught Company, analog trip systems. Specifically relate d cold shutdown includes two individuals Dockets Nos. 50-325 and 50424, to the operation with the reload fuel, the holding a senior reactor operator Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 amendment authorizes extension of the license. cnd 2. Brunswick County, North MAPulGR curves for 8 x8 and 9X9 Date ofissuance: January 15,1985. C:solina (LTA) fuel types and for GE P8DRB285H Effective Date: January 15,1985. fuel type and deletes the MAPUfGR Amendment No. 61. Date of applicationforamendments: curve for GE fuel type P8DRB239 which Facility Openting License No. DPR-October 2,1984. has never been used at Dresden and is

1. 1 Amendment revised the Technical Brief description of amendments: The not expected to be in the future.

Specifications. cmendments change the Technical Date ofissuancer january 17,1985. Date ofinitio/ Notices in the Federal Sp;cifications by revising Table 4.3.5.9 Effective Date:Jeauary 17,1985. Register: December 27,1983 (48 FR 1 to remove the requirement for control Amendment No. 84. 57031). %e Commission's related room alarm annunciation when the Pmvisiona/Opemting License No. evaluation of the amendment is noble gas activity monitors of the main DPR-tg. Tha amendment revised the etzck monitoring system, the reactor Technical Specifications. contained in a letter dated January 15, building ventilation monitoring system, Date ofinitialNotices in Federsi consideration comments received: No. 1985. No significant hazards or the turbine building ventilation Register: October 24,1984 (49 FR 42815) localPublic Document Room monitoring system experience a high. and November 21,1984 (49 FR 45944 and location: Russell Ubrary,124 Broad voltrge circuit failure. In addition, the 45945). ne Commission's related requirement for control room alarm evaluation of the amendment is Street. Middletown. Connecticut 06457 cnnunciation is removed for the contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-condition when the noble gas activity January 17,1985, No significant hazards

ftatfon, Titor of the reactor buildmg consideration comments received. No.

t1 d 2, I "'I tilation system is not set in the Loca/Public Document Room County, North Carolina perate mode." location: Morris Public Ubrary,004 Date of applicationforamendments: Date ofissuance February 7,1985. Uberty Street. Morris. Illinois 60451. August 31,1964.

i i ~ Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesday,' February 27. 1965 / Notices 8015 Brief description of amendments: The Date ofissuance: January 9,1985. Reactor Containment Leakage Testh.g amendments change the Technical Effective date: January 9,1985. For Water-Cooled Power Reactors". Specifications to implement the use of An endment Nos.133,133 and 130. Date ofissuance: Febmary 11,1965. time avercurrent trips of the circuit Facility Opemting License Nos. DPR-Effective date: February 11.1965. breakers for emergency diesel 33, DPR-47 and DPR,55. Amendments Amendments Nos.135,135, and 132. generators. revised the Te*chnical Specifications. Date ofissuance: February 1,1985. Date ofinitialnotice in the Federal Facility Operating Licenses Nos. Effective date: Febr:.:ary 1.1985. Registen August 22,1984,49 FR 33363 Amendm' #N#"#

1. N #

Amendment!Cr3f and 19. r The Commission's related evaluation of ents revised the Technical-e facility Opemting License Nos. NPF-the amendments is contained in a Safety Specifications. 9 andNPF-17. Amendments revised the Evaluation dated January 9,1985. Date ofinitio/ notice m Federal Technical Specifications. No significant hazards consideration Register: October 28,1984,49 FR 42817. Date ofinitialnotice in he Federal comments received: No. The Commission's related evaluation i Register: December 31,1934 (49 FR ocalPublic Document Room of the amendments is contained in a j 50601) The Commission's related locotton Oconee County Ubr6ty,501 Safety Evaluation dated Febmary 11. evaluation of the amendments is. West Southbroad Street, Walhalla, 1985. contained in a Safety Evaluation dated South Carolina. No significant hazards consideration February 1,1985. comments received: No. No significant hazards consideration Duke Power Company, Dockets Nos. 50-J* i comments received: No. 269,5&270,50-287. Oconee Nuclear Locc/ Public Document Room Loca/Public Document Room Station, Unit Nos.1,2, and 3, Oconee locahon: Oconee County Ubrary,501 location: Atkins Library, Uruversity of County, South Carolina % est S uthbroad Street. % alhalla, North Carolina Charlotte (UNCC Date of applicationfor amendments: Station). North Carolina 28223. November 9,1984. Duquesne Ught Company, Docket No. Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-Briefdescription of amendments: 5&334 Beaver Valley Powar Station, 3E9 and 5%1'0, McGuire Nuclear nese amendments revise the common Unit No.1, Shippmgport, Pennsylvania Station. Units 1 and 2. Mecklenburg Technical Specifications (TSs) to permit Date of Application foramendment: County, North Carolina Oconee Unit 2 a one time extension of June 28,1984. Date of application for amendments: the interval for inspecting inaccessible November 16,1984. hydraulic anubbers such that the Brief description of amendment:The 1 amendment changes the Technical Brief description of amendments: The inspection be performed during the 1985 Specifications for Beaver Valley Unit amendments change the Technical Wt 2 refuehng outage, provided that - No.1 as follows: I Specifications to delete the provision such utage begins no later than March which allows the upper head injection 15,1985. The inspection is currently (1) Table 4.3-13 has been revised to accumulator system to be inoperable at required to be performed before indicate that the Noble Gas Activity Monitor and Radiation Monitor provide less than or equal to 46% rated thermal

• f E
• Februg 6,1985.

c ntrol room alarm communication only; Effectn. i Power. e date: February 6,1985. they do not initiate any automatic Date ofissuance: February 6,1985. actuath' Effective date: Februar 6.1985' Amendments Nos. 134,134, and 131. Amendment Nos. 39 and 20' Facility Opemting License Nos. DPR-(2) Table 3.4-4 has been revised to Faci!!ty Opemtirg License Nos. NPF-38 DPR-47andDPR,55. Amendments specify the applicable time constant for 9 and/,?f-17. Amendments revised the revised the Technical Specifications. the functional unit High Negative Steam l Technical Specifications. Date ofinitialnotice in the Federal Pressure Rate to be greater than or equal Date ofinstialnotice in the Federal Register: December 31,1984. 49 FR to 50 seconds. Register: December 31,1984 (49 FR 50803. (3) Tables 3.3-3,3.3-4,3.3-5 and 4.3-2 i 50802) The Commission's related The Commission's related evaluation have been revised to add a list of signals evaluation of the amendments is of the amendments is contained in a that initiate the start of the Auxiliary i contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Safe'y Evaluation dated February 8, Feedwater System. February 6,1985. 1985. Dcte ofissuance: January 25,1985. No significant hazards consideration No significant hazards consideration Effective date January 25,1985. comments received: No. comments received: No. Amendment No. m Loccl Public Document Room LocalPublic Document Room Facility Operating License No. DPR-locc-Atkins Ubrary, University of location: Oconee County Ubrary,501

66. Amendment revised the Technical Nr ml;ne. Charlotte (UNCC West Southbroad Street, Walhalla, Specifications.

Sta1 North Carolina 28223. South Carolina Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Duke Power Company, Dockets Nos. 50-Duke Power Company, Dockets Nes. 50-Register September 28,1984 (49 FR 269. 50-270 and 50-287. Oconee Nuclear 269,50-270, and 50-287 Oconee Nuclear 38398). Station, Unites Nos.1,2 and 3, Oconee Station, Units Nos.1,2, and 3. Oconee The Commission's related evaluation County, South Carolina County, South Carolina of the amendment is contained in a Date of application for amendments: Date of applicationfor amendments: Safety Esaluation dated lanuary 25 j April 30,1984. August 8.1984. 1985. Brief description of amendment: Briefdescription of amendment: No significant hazards consideration j 'llese amendments revise the These amendments revise the Technical comments received: Nane. Administrative Controls Section of the Specifications to change the air lock Loca/ Public Document Room TSs to reflect the current regulations testing frequency from quarterly to location: B. F. lones Memorial Ubrary, governing licensee event reports as semiannually in conformance with 10 683 Franklin Avenue Aliquippa, required by the Commission. CFR Part 50, Appendix J," Primary Pennsylvania 15001. 1 e

~ Federal Register / Vol. 50,' No. 39 / Wednesday,' Febru'ary 8016 27, ~1985 f Notices I Florida Power Corporation,et al., LocalPublicDocument Room analysis (9) make editorlal changes, and Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit location: Appling County Public Library, (10) add a reporting requirement. 'o. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia. ' Date ofissuance: February 4.1985. ounty, Florid

• Date ofApplicationfor omendment:

Georgia Power Company Oglethorpe Effective date: February 4,1985. Power Corporation, Munidpel Electric Amendments Nos.:108 and 44. December 14,1984, as supplemented on. Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Facility Opem#ng henses Nos.. january 31,1985. Georgia, Docket No. 50-366, Edwin L DPR47andNPF4. Amendmenta Brief description of amendment: This. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No.2, Appling "VIs d e ca S ec amendment permitinratfer of certam - e County, Gecrgia D y

18. month calibration frequency requirements for Cycle % provided the Date of amendmentrequest:

Register: February 24,1984 (49 FR 7036). surveillance is performed during Refuel December 21,1983, as supplemented The Commission's related evaluation April to and May 2,1984. of the amendments is contained in a Date ofissuance: February 14,1985. Brief description ofamendment:The Safety Evaluation dated February 4, 1g85. Effective date February 14,1985. amendment revises the TSs for Hatch Amendment No.:73-Unit 2 to:(1) Increase the number of No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Facility Operating License No. DPR-traveling incore probe (Tip) system 72 Amendment revised the Technical detectors that are required to be LocalPublic Document Room Specifications. operable from three to four, and (2) location: Appling County Publicf*tary. Date ofinittelnotice in Federal allow operation of the TIP system with 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia. Rigister: January 14.1985. (50 FR 1949)% one or more inoperable detectors. GPU Nuclear Corporation. Dociet No, Subsequent to this initial notice, by Date ofissuance: January 31,1985. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear letter of January 31,1985, the licensee Effective date: January 31,1985. Generating Station, Ocean County, New suomitted additionalinformation Amendment No.:43. I""I relating to its application for amendme6t Facility Operating License No. NPF4. Date of applicationforamendment: which did not alter the substance of the Amendment revised the Technical licensee e request. Specifications. August 11,1980 and supplemented October 18.1982, December 5,1963, The Commission's related evaluation Date ofinitialnoticein Federal February 9 and March 23,1964. of the amendment is contamed in a Register: September 28,1984 (49 FR Briefdescription of amendment:The Safety Evaluation dated February 14. 38399). The Commission's related amendment authorized changes to the 1985. evaluation of the amendment is Appendix A Technica' Specifications No significant hazards consideration contained in a Safety Evaluation dated relating to station electric distribution - 'mments received: No. january 31,1985. system voltages. ( .ocalPubhc Document Room No significant hazards conalderation Date ofIssuance: February 11.1985. scation: Crystal River Public Libr.ary, comments received: No. Effective date: February 11,1985. 668 N.W. F rst Avenue, Crystal River, LocalPublic Docament Room Amendment No.:80. Florida. location: Appling County Public Library, Provisiona/ Ope:uting License No. Giorgia Power Company, Oglethorpe 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia. DPR-18. Amendment revised the Pow er Corporation, Municipal Electric Georgia Power Company Oglethorpe Technical Specifications. Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Power Corporation, Municipal Electric O### #I'"

1. ##U## '"

Grorgia. Docket No. 54-366, Edwin I. Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, R@ sten hmk 21,1W @ R Itatch Nuclear Plant Unit No.2, Appling Georgia Dockets Nos. 50-321 and 50-m52Ae ConWu,s relaW County, Georgia 566, Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unita evaluati n ithis amendmentis Date of amendment request:luly 12 Nos.1 and 2. Appling County, Georgia cetained b a SaMy habah daw February 11,1985. No significant IW-Date of applications for amendments: hazards conkideration comments Briefdescription ofamendment:The May 31,1983, as supplemented received; No. amendment revises the TSs for Hatch September 1 and November 22,1983. LocalPublic Document Room: Ocean Unit 2 to add a requirement to reduce Briefdescription of amendment:The County Library,101 Washington Street, the power below a specified limit amendments revise the TSs for Hatch Toms River, New Jersey 08753. whenever the plant is temporarily Unit 1 to:(1) Reduce the equilibrium operating with only one recirculation activity concentration limit for reactor GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket loop. coolant,(2) increase time per year that No. 50-289. Three Mile Island Nuclear Date ofissuance: January 24,1985-reactor coolant activity is allowed to Station. Unit No.1. Dauphin County, Effective date: January 24,1985. exceed the equilibrium value,(3) Pennsylvania Amendment No.:42.

• increase the time allowed forisolating Date of amendment r* quest: June 1 Facihty Operating License No. NPF4. steam valves when an activity limit is July 11 August 2, and September 11, Amendment revised the Technical exceeded,(4) increase the dose 1984.

Sp;cifications. equivalent lodine concentration above Briefdescription ofamendment:%is Date ofimtialnoticein Federal which addition 41 samples are required, amendment revises the TSs related to Register: October 24.1984 (49 FR 42822). (5) increase the rate of increase in offges the allowable concentration of hydrogen The Commission's related evaluation activity at which reactor coolant samples are required (6) reduce the and oxygen in the waste gas holdup of the amendment is contained in a dose equivalent I-131 concentration at system and the associated hydrogen /* %fety Evaluation dated January 24, which reactor coolant samples are amendment permits unlimited oxygen oxygen monitoring instrumentation. %e T. a significant hazards consideration required to be taken,(7) require content provided that hydrogen content additional coolant samples (8) relax the is below 4% and permits unlimited ,,wmments received; No. requirement for equivalent 1-131 hydrogen content provided that the

~ i Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 1985 / Notices 8017 oxygen limit is below 2%. The TSs Briefdescription of amendmente ne Containment leak Testing to conform require two hydregen monitors and two amendment revises the Technical with to CFR Part 50 Appendix j. oxygen monitors to assure compliance Specifications to incorporate the revised Date ofissuance: February 4.1985. with the above lingits. Umiting setpoint for bypass of reactor scrams Effective date: February 4,1985. conitions for operation are also during turbine trips and generator load Amendment No.:82. included. rejeetion at tow power levels. Facility Opemting License No. DPR-Date ofissuance: February 4.1985. Date cfissuance: February 5,1985. Jd Amendment revised the Technical Effective date;fgbcary 4,1985. Effective date: February 5,1985. Specifications. g. e Amendment No.:1 64. Amendment No.: 111. Date ofinitialtvAice in Federal Facility Opemting License No. DPR-Facility Opemting License No. DPR-Registen july 20,1983 (48 FR 33078 at

50. Amendment revised the Technical

49. Amendment revised the Technical 33082) and June 20,1984 (49 FR 25350 at i

Specifications. Specifications. 25383). Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal Date ofinitialnotice in Federal The Commission's related evaluetion Register: November 21,1984. (49 FR Registen September 28,1984 (49 FR of the amendment is contained in a 45953). 38401). Safety Evaluation dated February 4 The Commission's related evaluation The Commissien's related evaluation 1985. of the amer.dment is contained in a of the amendment is contained in a No significant hazards consi@ ration Safety Evaluation dated February 4, Safety Evaluation dated February 5, cumments received: No. ys ( 1985. 1985. LocalPublic Document Room t No sugnificant hazards consideration No significant hazards consider.tlon location: Wiscasset Public Ubray, liigh comments received. No. comments received: No. Street, Wiscasset. Maine. LocalPublic Document Room LocalPublic Document Room.- location: Government Publications location: Cedar Rapids Public Ubrary. Mississlppi Power b Ught Company, Section. State Iibrary cf Pennsylvania, 428 Third Avenue S.E., Cedar Rapids, Middle South Energy,Inc., South Education Building Commonwealth and towa 52401. Mississippi Electric Power Association. %'alnut Streets, liarrisburg. Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Pennsylvaru,a 17128. Wb hdu h& hw Gg% SMm M L CMba Coun$ Docket No. 50-309, Maine Yankee Mississippi lowa Electric Ught and Power Company, Atomic Power Station, uncoln County' Docket No. 50431. Duane Arnold Maine Date of applicationfor amendment Energy Center, Unn County. Iowa October 9,1984. Date ofapplicationforamendment: Briefdescription of amendment: The j Date of applicationfor amendment: April 13.1984, amendment modifies the Technical October 5.1984. Brief description of amendment:This Specifications to implement a change of Briefdescription of amendment:The amendment modified the Maine Yankee position title in the offsite organization y smendment revises the Technical Technical Specificaticns concerning for management of the facility. j Specifications to incorporate the operability and surveillance of various Date ofissuance: February 1,1985. requirements of automatic acturi n of monitoring equipment required by Effective date: February 1,1985. the automatic depressurization r, t tem NUREG-0737. Amendment No.i t. (ADS) valves in accidents which : not Date ofissuance: January 29.1985. Facility Operating License No. NPF-involve a high containment presst a Effective date: January 29.1985. 29: Amendment revised the Technical and provides for surveillance Amendment No.:81. Specifications. requirements of manual oserride Facility Operating License No. DPR-Date ofinitialnoticein Federal switches. 36: Amendment revised the Technical Registen November 21,1984 (49 FR I Date ofissuance February 1,1985. Specifications. 45955). Effective date: February 1.1985. Date ofinitia/ notice in Federal The Commission's related evaluation Amendment No.110. Registen }une 20.1984 (49 FR 25350 at of the amendment is contained in a Pacihty Operating License No. DPR-25383). Safety Evaluation dated February 1, G Amendment revised the Technical The Commission's related evaluation 1985. Specifications. of the amendment is contained in a No significant hazards consideration Date ofimtialnotice in Federal Safety Evaluation dated january 29, comments received: No. Registen December 31,1984 [49 FR 1935. LocalPublic Document Room t 50805)- No significant hazards consideration location:llinds Junior College, George The Commission's related evaluation comments received: No comments M. McLendon Library, Raymond, of the amendment is contained in a received. Mississippi 39154. Safety Evaluation dated Febrsary 1. LocalPublic Document Room location: Wiscaeset Public Ubrary, liigh Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et 985. No significant hazards consideration Street, Wiscasset, Maine. al., Dorket No. 50-338, Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.2 Town he Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, of Watedord, Connecticut Lo / oc ent Room location: Cedat Rspida Public Ubrary, f*,I" Date cf application for amendment: g ty' C6 Third Avenue, G.E., Cedar Rapids. Iowa 52401. M*I"* December 10,1984. 3 'Brief description of amendment: This Date of application foramendment: amendment modified the Technical 8 Y 8 8 8 mPany' March 1,1976 as supplemented April 11. Specifications authorizing the use of an 1984. y,ergy Center, Unn County, Iowa outage coulpment doorin place of the Brief description of amendment: This equipment hatch door during refueling Date ofopplicationforamendment amendment modified the Maine Yankee operations. I August 17,1984. J Technical Specifications concerning Date ofissuance: February 12,1985. I e

^ 8018 Federal Register / V:1. So, No. '39 / Wednesday, February 27,198s T Notice. Effective date: February 12,1965. Amendment No.: 08. Technical Specifications. Dese changes Franklin Street, Wilkee-Barre, are administrative in nature. ,e Facihty Opemtids License No. DPR-Pennsylvania 18m1. .: Amendment revised the Technical Dc.te ofissuance: February s,1985. cipecifications. Effective date: As of date ofissuance. p g,,g,p,,,,y g y, Amendment No.:29. Docket Nos. 56,387 and 50-3e8, Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Focihty Opemting License No. NPF-Susquehanna Steam Electric Stalian, R:gisten December 31.19b4 (49 FR 50794 14: Amendment revised the Technicaly,5,,,,,g 1, gag,,,,cau,gy, at 50008). g Specifications.

p.,,,y y.,g, The Commission'ualahd esaluatlon-Date ofinitialnotices in Federal Date of apph'cationforamendments-e of the amendment is confained in a Registen November 21,1984 (49 FR December 6,1984.

Sifety Evaluation dated February 12, 45956). %e Conimission's related Briefdescription of amendments: 1985. evaluation of the amendment is Rese amendments revise the No significant hazards consideration contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, comments received: No. February 6,1965. No comments on the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical LocalPublic Document Room proposed no significant hazards Specifications to allow common DC125-location: Waterford Public Library. Rope consideration finding were received. volt battery loads to be supported by the Ferry Road. Waterford. Connecticut. LocalPublic DocumentRoom Unit 1 or Unit 2 batteries. Previously, ' Pennsyh.ania Power & Ught Company, Location: Osterhout Free Library, only the Unit 1,125 volt batteri Reference Department. 71 South able to support these common 1 a. m u qu h ana lec

tstion, Franklin Street. Wilkes. Barre, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, dvania Date ofissuance: February 8,1965.

P;nnsylvania Effectsve date: February 8,1985. Pennsylvania Power & 1 ght Company, AmendmentNos.t 31 and 7. Date of applicationforamendments: Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-September 19.1984. Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, 14 andNPF-22: Amendments restsed onef description of amendment:This y,,,,,,and 2. Luzeme County, the Technical Specifications, Units 1 emendment revises !Jcense Condition Date ofinitialnoticein Federal 2.C.(23)(b) of Facility Operating No. Date of application for amendment's: Registen Individual notice dated NPF-14 and License Condition 2 C.(8)(b) September 19,1984 with supplerdentalJanu 7" 1965 (50 FR 904). De of Facility Operating License No. NPF-, information January 3,1985. Cam sin's related evaluation of 22.%e license condition previou iy Briefdescription of amendments: %e these amendments is contained in a required seismic qualification of the in. purpose of these amendments is to Safety Evaluation dated February 8, vessel fuel racks prior to commencement change Susquehanna Unit 1 and Unit 21985. No significant hazards 'he first tefueling outage. Since the t nsee has no need for the in-vessel Technical Specification Table 3.8.4.2-1 consideration comments were received. f .el rack during the f rat refueling outage by revising the list of motor-operated LocalPublic Document Room valves in the Emergency Service Water M dew Fm W"7 the NRC staff will require the licensee to seismically qualify the in-vessel fuel (ESW) system to support the corrective Refnence Department,71 South ' rtck prior to use. action described in the licensee's final Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, report dated September 22,1983 Pennsylvania 18701. Date ofissuance: January 15.1985. regarding a deficiency invohing water Pennsylvanla Power & Light Company Effective date; january 15.1985. hammer in the ESW system. Amendment Nos.:28 and 5. Specifically, ESW valves IW-OB693 A Docket Nos. 50-387, Susquehanna Steam facility Operating License Nos. NPF-and B would be added to Technical Pennsylvania Electric Station, Unit 1. Lur.eme County, 14 andNPT-22 Amendment revises the Specification Table 3.8 4.2-1 for Unit 1 license. and Unit 2. Additionally,in the Unit 2 Date of applicationforamendment: Date ofinitialnotices in Federal Registen November 21.1984 (49 FR Technical Specifications ESW pump September 7,1964. discharge valves HWC1101 A, B, C and Bnefdescription of amendment:This 45961). The Commission's related D would be deleted from Technical amendment supports modificatione evaluation of the amendment is Specification Table 3.8.4.2-1. invohing the installation of overcunent contsined in a Safety Evaluation dated Date ofissuance: February 7,1985. relays e each nactor recuculatin linuary 15.1985. So significant hazards Effective date: Prior to start.up pump circuit breaker in order to provide consideration comments were received. following the Unit 1 first refueling redundant overcurrent protection for the LocalPublic Document Room outage. primary catainment perietration Location Osterhout Free Library, Amendment Nos.:30 and 8. conductors. Reference Department. 71 South Frtnklin Street. Wilkes-Barre, Facility Opemting License Nos. NPF-Date ofissuance: February 15,1985. Pennsylvania 18701. 14 andNPF-22: Amendment revised the Effective date: Upon start-up Technical Specifications. following the first refueling outage. Pennsylvania Power & Ught Company, Date ofinitialnoticesin Federal AmendmentNo.:32. Docket No. 50-387, Susquehanna Stean Registen December 31,1984 (49 FR Facility Dperating Ucense No. NPF-Electric Stabon, Unit 1. Imzerne County, 50817).%e Commission's related 14: Amendment revised the Technical nns%ve evaluation of the amendment is Specifications, Date of applicationforamendments: contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Date ofinitialnoticein Federal M:y 18,1984 and September 20,1984. February 7,1985. No comments were Registen December 31,1984 (49 FR received on the proposed no significant Description ofamendment request-hazards consideration finding. 50815).The Commission's related mical Specifications to reflect LocalPublic Document Room evaluation of the amendment is cmendment revises the Unit 1. contained in a Safety Evaluation dated enges incorporated into the Unit 2 Location: Osterhout Free Library, February 15,1985. No comments on the Reference Department,71 South proposed no significant harards e

Feder:1 Register / W1. 50. No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 1965 / Notices 3019 consideration determination were facility Operating License No. NPF-Philadelphia Electric Company, Pud received. 14: Amendment revises the Technical Service Electric and Gas Company, LocalPublic Document Room Specifications. Delmarva Power and Ught Company, Location:Osterhout Free Library, Dates ofinitia/noticesin Federal and Atlantic City Electric Company, Reference Department,71 South - Register: December 31,1984 (49 FR Dockets Nos. 50-277 and 50-275 Pe6ch Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre. 50817). The Commission's related Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units Pennsylvania 18701. evaluation of the amendment is Nos. 2 and 3 York County, Pennsylvania contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Pennsylvania Powpr & Ught Company, February 15,1985. No significant Date ofapplicadonforamen3ents: e Docket No. 50-387, Susquehanna Steam hazards consideration comments were November 10,1983. Electric Station, Unit 1 Luzerne County, received. Briefdescription ofamendments: Penns@ania LocalPublicDocumentRoom These amedments revise the Technical Date ofopplicationforbirendment: Location: Osterhout Free Library, Specification a tco tinued September 24 1984' Reference Department,71 South p P Briefdescription of amendment:his Franklin Street. Wilkes. Barre, et e he amendment reflec,ts the installation of a Pennsylvania 18701. d permanent radiation momtoring system g ggg9 gg in the new fuel storage vault and spent Pennsylvania Power and Ught Company 48 hours when the high te,pperature Docket Nos. 50487 and 50488, sensor is inoperable, provided the water Date of ssuance Fe ruary 15.1985. Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, temperature is verified to be less than Effective date: Thirty (30) days from Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County 180* once per hour.nese changes also the date ofissuance. Pennsylvania involve the clarification of TS lanaguage Amendment No.:33. ' Date of applicationfor amendments: related to the scram discharge volume facility Operating License No. NPF-September 28,1934. and the deletion of obsolete references 14: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications. Briefdescription of amendment: The to completed modifications. Date ofinitialnoticein Federal amendment request changes the D te ofissuance: February 7.1985. Register: December 31,1984 (49 FR Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. Effective date: February 7,1985. 50816).The Commission a related Unit I and Unit 2 Technical Amendments Nos.:104 and 108. evaluation of this amendmentis Specifications 4.8.5.3 and 4.7.2 with Facility Operating Licenses Nos. contained in a Safety Evaluation dated regard to HEPA filters and charcoal DPR-44andDPR-56. Amendments adsorber units to incorporate revised the Technical Specifications. p p e n$ s g if nt h ta ds clarificat*cns discussed in NRC Generic Date ofinitia/ notice in Federal consideration determination comments Letter No. 83-13, dated March 2,1983. Register: April 25,1984. (49 FR 17889). were received. The clarification to the Technical The Commission's related evaluation of Locu/Public Document Room Specifications were provided to clearly the amendment is contained in a Safety Location: Osterhout Free Library, reflect the required relationship between Evaluation dated February 7,198k Reference Department,71 South the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.52, No significant hazard considera'tlon Franklin Street, Wilkes. Barre, Revision 2, and ANSI N510-1975: the comments received: No. Pennsylvania 18701. testing requirements of the HEPA filters localPublic Document Room location and charcoal adsorber units; and the Government Publications Section State Pennsylvam,a Power and Light Company NRC staff assumptions used in its safety Library of Pennsylvania, Education Docket No. 50-387, Susquehanna Steam evaluations for the ESF atmospheric Building Commonwealth and Walnut Electric Station, Unit 1, Luzerne County cleanup systems. Pens}lvama Street, Harrisburg. Pennsylvania. Date ofissuance: February 15,1985. Date of applicationforamendment Effective date: February 15,1985. jP rt enera tric mpan g,_ g September 19,1984. Amendment Nos.135 and 8. Brief description of amendments:'dlis Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-Plad, Cdumbia CouMy, Oregon amendment revises Technical 14 andNPF-22: Amendments revised Briefdescription of amendment:%e Specification 4.8.1.7 parts "C" and "d" to the Technical Specifications. ~ amendment deleted license condition support plant modifications that will be Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal 2.C(10) pertaining to the US/lAEA made during the first refueling outage

• Register: November 21,1984 (49 FR Safeguards Agreement.

for Unit 1.The plant modifications involve the relocation of two 45981). Date ofissuance: February 5,1985. temperature elements used to monitor The Commission's related evaluation Effective date: February 5.1985. of these amendments is contained in a Amendment No. 101 \\ ,h8[mpe egnhe Safety Evaluation dated February 15, Facility Operating License No. NPF-1. p e change to part "c" includes revised 1985. No comments on the proposed no Amendment revised the license. elevation and azimuth valves of the sigmficant hazards consideration Date ofinitialnoticein Federal relocated temperature elements and the determination were received. Register:The Commission's related change to part "d"is editorialin nature. LocalPublic Document Room evaluation of the amendmentis Date ofissuance: February 15,1985. Location: Osterhout Free Library, cor.tained in a letter transmitting the Effective date: Upon start.up Reference Department,71 South amendment dated February 5,1985. following the first refueling outage Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, LocalPublic Document Room location Amendment No.:34 Pennsylvania 18701. Multnomah County Library,801 S.W. 10th Avenue, Portlaad, Oregon. l

8020 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 1985 / Notices' Portland General Electric Company, et Public Service Electric and Gee South Carolina Electric & CesCompany.

• Docket No. 50-344, Trojan Nuclear Company Docket No. 36411. Salem South Carolina Public Service Authority, at, Columbia County, Oregon Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 Docket No. 56-395, Vir:0 C. Summer Dcte of application fpramendment:

Salem County, New Jersey Nucl a on, Unit 1, Fairfield Ommty, October 1.1984. Date ofapplicationfor amendment: Brief description of ame'ndment: The September 29,1983. Date of applicationforamendment: emIndment adds requirements for Briefdescription ofemendment:The July 19,1984, and supplemented operability, visualiwecipne and r amendment removes a license condition November 29,1964. e periodic testing of mechanical snubbers requiring the installation of upper Brief description of amendment:%,e end adds similar improved requirements inspection ports on the Salem Unit No. 2 amendment modifies the Technical for hydraulic anubbers. steam generators. Specifications to clarify educational Dcte ofissuance: February 8,1985. Date ofissuance: February 7,1985. requirementa of candidates for Senior Effective date: February 6,1985. Effective date: February 7,1985. Reactor Operator's Ucenses. Amendment No.:102. Amendment No.: 2g Date ofissuance: January 24,1985. Facility Opercting License No. NPF-1. Facility Opemting Ucense No. DPR. Effective date:lanuary 24.1985. Amendment revised the Technical 75: Amendment revised the Ucense. Amendment No.: 36. Specifications. Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Facility Opemting License No$PF-Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register December 31,1984 (49 FR JE. Amendment revised the Techni.al Register: December 31,1984 (49 FR 50794 50821). Specifications. ct 50819). The Commission's related evaluation Date ofinitia/noticein Federal The Commission's related evaluation of the amendmentis containedin a Register: September 28.1984 (49 FR of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 7, 38408) The Commission's related, Safety Evaluation dated February 6, 1985. evaluation of the amendment is 1985. No significant hazards consideration contained in a Safety Evaluation dated No significant hazards consideration comments have been received. january 24.1985. comments received: No. LocalPublic Document Room LocalPublic DocumentRoom Location of LocalPublic Document location: Salem Free Ubrary,112 West' location Fairfield County Ubrary, Room Multnomah County Ubrary,801 Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079. Garden and Washington Street, S.W.10th As enue. Portland. Oregon. Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180. Sacramento Munle.ipal Utility District, ~ ver Authority of the State of New Docket No. 50-312, Rancho Seco South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, i , Docket No. 50-333. James A. Nuclear Generating Station, Sacramento South Carolina Public Service Authority, /atrick Nuclear Power Plant. County, California Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Oswego County, New York Date of application for amendment: Nuclear Station Unit 1. Fairfield County, South Carolina Date ofcpplication for amendment: October 18,1984. as tevised November October 9.1984. 8,1984. Date ofapplicationfor amendment: Brief description of amendment:The Brief description ofamendment:The lune 19.1984 as revnsed November 29 tmendment revises the Technical amendment temporarily changes TS 1984-Specifications by changing the high Section 1.2.8. definition of refueling Briefdescription ofamendment:The reactor pressure setpoint for interval, from 18 months to 24.5 months amendment modifies the Technical recirculation pump trip from " greater for surveillance testing of the Reactor Specifications to define allowable than or equal to 1120 psig" to the Internals Vent Valves. Upon startup power levels for reactor coolant system corrected value of "less than or equal to from the next refueling outage, this flow rates less than 100% of thermal 1120 psig." ' temporary definition will expire. design flow. Date ofissuance: January 30.1985. Date ofissuance: January 22,1985. Gate ofissuance: January 31,1985. Effective date: January 30,1985. Effective date: January 22,1985 Effective date: January 31,1985. Amendment No.:88 Amendment No.:59. Amendment No.: 37. Facility Operaung License No. NDR-Facility Operating License No. DPR. Facility Operating License No. NPF-59 Amendment revised the Technical

54. Amendment revi.ed the Technica)

12. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Specifications. Specifications. Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Date ofiniticinotice in Federal Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register: November 21.1984 (49 FR Registar: December 20,1984,49 FR Register: October 24.1984 (49 FR 42830). 45963). 49528. The Commission's related evaluation 'Ite Comn ission's related evaluation The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is cantained in a cf th2 amendment is contained in a of the amendment la contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 31, Safety Evaulation dated January 30. Safety Evaluation dated January 22, 1985. 1985. 1985. No significant hazards consideration No significant hazards consideration No significant hazards consideratien comments received: No. comments received: No. commenta received: No. LocalPublic DocumentRoom

• alPublic Document Room LocalPublicDocument Room location:Fairfield County Ubrary, g

n: Penfield Ubrary, State location: Sacramento City-County Carden and Washington, Streets. .rsity College of Oswego, Oswego, I.ibrary,828 I Street, Sacramento, Winnsboro South Carolina 29180. N;w York. California.

m t Federal Register / Vd. So, N2,39 / W2dnesby, February 27, 1985 / Notices 8021 1 Southern California Edison Company, Dates ofinitialnotices in Federal Safety Evaluation dated January 24 Docket No. 50-208 San Onofre Nuclear Register: October 24,1984 (49 FR 42832 1985. Generating Station Unit No.1, San and 49 FR 42833).The Commisalon's No significant hazards consideration Diego County, California related evaluation of the amendmentis comments received:No. contained in a Safety Evaluation dated LocalPublicDocument Roons Date of applicationfor amendment December 19,1984. No significant locatiore Chattanooga-Hamilton County September 9,1983 as modifie<* April 12, hazards consideration comments were Bi :entennial Ubrary,1001 Broad Street. 1984 and supplemented November 14, received. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401. q

3934, LocalPublic Document Room y

g ,, y,gpg Brief descriptioR~of amendmeil:ne Location: San Clemente ubrary 242 an Um CaHg amendment approves changes to Avenida Del Mar, San Clemente, Appendix A Technical Specifications California. which incorporate containment leakage Ne of app onhr amenhent testing requirements to conform with 10 Tennessee Vally Authority,Dodet Nos. Octok 3,1964 and supplemented on 1 CFR Part 50 Appendix J. 50-260 and 50-298, Browns Ferry Decepr 8,1984. l i Date ofissuance: February 8,1985. Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3.Umestone .Bne description ofamendment%e Effective date: February 8,1985. County, Alabama ent requested the addition of amen Amendnent Nat 87. PmvisionalOpenting License No. Date of applicationfor amendments: two 100.000 gallon tanks in order to DPR-13. Amendment revised the December 13,1964. provide sufficient storagdTne for Brief DescriptJon of ameiximents: %e secondary effluent to al!5w sample i Technical Specifications. amendments modify Commission Orders analysis and to show acceptability of Date ofinitia/ notice in Federal dated March 25,1983 to extend the the water prior to release to the Register: June 20,1984 (49 FR 25374). deadhne forinstallation of NUREG-0737 environment. The Commission's related evaluation i ~ of the amendment is contained in a items II.F.1.1 and II.F.1.2 instrumentation Date ofissuance: February 4,1985. Safety Evaluation dated February 8, having local readout capability. Effective date: February 4,1985. i 1985 No significant hazards Date ofissuance: February 12,1985. Amendment No.i2. consideration comments received: No. Effective date: February 12,1985. Focility Operating License No. NPF-LocalPublic Document Room Amendment Nos.:110 and 85. 3a. Amendmrnt revised the Technical Location: San Clemente Branch Library, Facility Openting License No.DPR-242 Avendia Del Mar. San Clemente, 52 andDPR-68: Amendment revised the Specifications [dmuce in Fedwal Datufint i Register: November 21,1964 (49 FR Cahfornia 92672. lic . *ddhices in FM 45mL ll Southern California Edison Company, et Register: December 31,1984 (49 FR e Commission'a related evaluation al. Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362, San 50825)' Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a ( Ooofre Nuclear Generating Station, g, Safety Evaluation dated February 4. Units 2 and 3, San Diego County

• of the amendment is contained in a 1985. No s:gnificant hazards P

Cahfonus Safety Evaluation dated February 12,

• I0 'i ** ***". '"'* **0 N*

Dates of application for amendments: 1985. c mments received L April 24, April 27, July 9. August 7, No significant hazards consideration LocalPublic Document Room.. August 21 August 27. and September 12, comments recieved: No. Locations: Fulton City Library',709 1984. LocalPublic Document Room Market Street, Fulton, Missouri 65251 5 Brief Description of amendments: The Location: Athens Public Ubrary, South and the Olin Library, Skinker and amendments change Technical and Forrest. Athens, Alabama 35811. Lindell Boulevards, St. Louis, Missouri U Specifications to (1) provide consistency Tennessee VaBey Authority Dodat e3130. with the modified plant design for ECCS Union Electdc Company, Docket No. 50-Subsystems. (2) add a new specification. .P Un an 'H ton c 483, Callaway Plant Unit 1.Callswey Emergency Chilled Water System,(3) g. incresse the reuired shutdown margin Comty, Missoud required when the core sverage Dates of application for amendments: Date ofapplicationforamendment moderator temperatu e is less than or July 21,1983, and August 20,27, and 28. [1 October 8,1964. equal to 200*F,(4) add a new 1984. The amendment revises the survei!!ance requirement which verifies Briefdescription afamendments De Administrative Controls Section of the J that only one charging pump is operable amendments change the Technical Technical Specifications. Figure 8.2-2 in Mode 5, when the reactor coolant Specifications related to contaimnent has been revised to include two system is drained below the hot leg isolation valves, vital batteries, fire centerline, and (5) change the boric acid detectors, and the basis statement for additional managerial positions in the P ant organizatiom section s.5.1.2 hae l l storage tank volume / concentration. the steam generetor low-low level Ipeen revised to include an additional Date ofissuance: December 19,1964. instrumentation. member of the On-Site Review Effective date Amendment No. 28 is Date ofissuance: January 24,1985 Committee. effective December 19,1984. Certain Effective date: January 24,1985. portions of Amendment 17 are effective Amendment Nos. 37 and 29. Date ofissuance }anuary 3(5.1985. i 1 December 19,1964; the reunainder of Facility Operating License Na DPR-Effectin date:larmary 30,1985. Amendment 17 is effective prior to 77andDPR-7R Amendments revised Amendment Na:3. initial entry into Mode 5 following first the Techrdcal Specifications. Facility Opemting License No. NPF- ~ refueling. Dates ofinitialnotices in Federal 30 Amendment revised the Technical AmendmentNos 28 and 17. Register: October 12,1983 (48 FR 46460) Specifications. Date of initial notice in Facility Operating LicenseNa NPF-and November 21,1984 (49 FR 45979). Federal Register: November 21,1964 (49 10andNPF-15: Amendments revised The Commisalon's related evalustian FR 45070).ihe Commission's related the Technical Sp-cifications. of the -ahnts is contained in a evaluation of the amendment is I e

8022 Fed:r:1 Regist:r' / Vol. 50,'No. '39 / sdnisday,'Februd 27, 1985 7 N;ticis contained in a Safety Evaluation dated allowed for placing a unit in Hot University of Virginia Charlottesville. hnuary 30.1985. No significant hazards Standby, Hot Shutdown and Cold Virginia 22901. sideration comm^ents received: No Shutdown in the event a Limiting .iments received. Condition of Operation and/or Mr@a Mc ad Peer' Company. Loca1PublicDocumentRoom associated Action Statement cannot be Docket Nos. 56-280 and 50-281, Sarry locations Fulton City Library,709 satisfied because of circumstances in Power Station. Unit Nos.1 and 2. Surry I Mttket Street, Fulton, Mislouri 65251 excess of those addressed in a

• • ""'Y' M 'I "I*

and the Olin Library of Washington specification. Date of application for amendments: University, Skinker and l# dell Date ofissuance: February 1.1985. September 19,1984. Boulevards. St. Louis. Midsouri 63130. ' Effective date: February 1,1985. Briefdescription of amendments: k"[ffy*h f# c,",3fgos, gpp. De9 amedments @ese TeMcal Vcrmont Yankee Nuclear Power Ccrporation, Docket No. 50-271. 4 andNPF-7.: Amendments revised the Specification Table 4.1-2A to delete the Vctmont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. Vernon, Vermont Technical Specifications. reqmrement to test the control rod drop Date ofinitialnoticein Federal times at cold conditions af*er a refueling Date of applicationforamendment: Register February 24,1984 (49 FR 7048} su wn a a a Re February 7,1984 as supplemented Ma'y and December 31,1984 (49 FR 50794 at C lant System. 18.1984. 50827). I Brief description of amendment The The Commission's related evaluation Date ofissuance: }anuary 22.1g. cm:ndment revises the Technical of the amendments is contained in a Effective date: January 22,1955. Specifications related to the limiting Safety Evaluation dated February 1 AmendmeniNos.101 and 100. conditions for operation and 1985. Facihty Operating License Nos. DPR-surveillance requirements to delete the No significant hazards consideration 32 andDPR,37: Amendment revised the requirements for the design feature that comments received: No. TechnicalSpecifications. cutomatically transfers high pressure LocalPublicDocument Room coolant injection (HPCI) suction to the location: Board of Supervisors Office, g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,y,g,,,3 suppression pool from the condensate Louisa County Courthouse, Louisa, Registen November 21,1984 (49 FR storage tank, upon high waterlevelin Virginia 23093, and the Alderman 45980). the suppression pool Library, Manuscripts Department, Significant hazards consideration, Date ofissuncer january 23,1985. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, comments received: No. Effective date:lanuary 23,1985. Virginia 22901. LocalPublic Room location:Swem i AmendmentNo.: 85. Library, College of William and Mary, 1 Mrg.. Electric and Power Company, et mia Facility Opemting License No. DPR-

• • Amendment tevised the Technical al., Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, W Iliamsburg. Virginia 23185.

cifications. North Anna Power Station, Units No.1 Wisconslo Public Service Corporab,on, Jate ofinitio/ notice in Federal and No. 2,louisa County, Virginia Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Nuclear Registen April 25.1984 49 FR 17878. Date of application foramendments: Power Plant. Kewaunee County. Subsequent to the initial notice in the March 18.1984, revised November 21. Wisconsin Federal Register, the licensee provided 1964. Date of application for amendment ?:- NRC-requested documentation by letter Brief description of amendments: The lune 4.1984. as revised August 21,1984. ~ dtted May 18,1984. This documentary amendments revise the NA-1E2 TS to information does not affect the be in conformance with the new Briefdescription of amendment:The discussion or conclusions of the initial Licensee Event Report System as amendment consists of changes to notice of our proposed determination in stipulated in 10 CFR Part 50.73 and the position titles and includes minor immediate notification requirements for orgarizational changes, in addition. it rny way. concludes additional Senior Reactor The Commission's related evaluation operating nuclear power reactors as cf the amendment is contained in a provided in 10 CFR Part 50.72 which Operator requirements, clarification of Saf;ty Evaluation dated Janaury 23, became effective January 1,1984. environmental sample locations and ~ coMus of minor enors. 1985. Date ofissuance: February 1.1985. No significant hazards consideration Effective date:Within 7 days after Date ofissuonce: January 22,1985. comments received: No. date ofissuance. Effective date: January 22,1985. LocalPublic Document Room Amendment Nos.:83 and 47. Amendment No. 00 Location: Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Focility Opetuting License Nos. NPF-Facility Operating License No. DPR-Main Street, Brattleboro, Vermont 05301. 4 andIJPF-7. Amendments revised the 43: Amendment revised the Technical C Virginia Electric and Power Company, et fj,caon Specifications. p g, Fe eral 01., Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, Date ofinitic/ notice m Federal North Anna Power Station, Units No.1 eg sten A[ 25, N. Hm 17850) Registen July 24,1984 (49 FR 29924) and and No. 2. Louisa County, Virgmaa ['h f,9 renoticed October 24,1984 (49 FR 42835). at Date of applicationforamendment: evaluation of the amendments is

• Ihe Commission's related evaluation December 15.1%3 and August 1,1984.

contained in a Safety Evaluation dated of the amendm,ent is contained in a Briefdescription of amendment:The February 1,1985. Safety Evalustson dated January 22, cm:ndments revise the NA-1&2 TS 3.0.3 No significant hazards consideration

1985, to provide consistency with the time comments received: No.

Significant hazards consideration requirements and wording specified in LocalPublic Document Room comments received: None. % NRC approved standardized location: Board of Supervisors Office, Loco /PublicDocumentRoom stinghouse 13 which are Louisa County Courthouse, louisa, location: University of Wisconsin. popriately applied to NA-1&2. The Virginia 23093, and the Alderman Library Learning Center. 2420 Nicolet ume requirements state the time Library, Manuscripts Department. Drive, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301,

,y l Federal Register / Vol 50, No. 39 / Wedne' day. February 27, 1965 / Notices 8023 e NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF with 10 CFR 51.22. *lherefore, pursuant the proceedmg: and (3) the possible a AMENDMENT TO FACILITY to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental effect of any order which may be OPERATING UCENSE AND FINAL impact statement or environmental entered in the proceeding on the DETERMINATION OF NO assessment need be prepared for these. petitioner's interest. ne petition should l SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS amendments. If the Commission has also idemify the specific aspect (s) of the CONSIDERATION AND prepared an environmental assessment subject matter of the proceeding as to OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING under the special circumstances which petitioner wishes to intervene. l (EXIGENT OR EMERGENCY provision in to CFR 51.12(b) and has Any person who has filed a petition for i CIRCUNSTANEESp - r made a determination based on that leave to intervene or who has been assessment,it is so indicated. admitted as a party may amend the During the 30-day period since.IEing action see:(1)%e application for 83oard up to fifteen (15) days prior to the For further details with respect to the petition without requesting leave of the

• (([, ;f ast m

, ued 6 amendment. (2) the amendment to first prehearing conference scheduled in amendments.The Commission has Facility Operating Ucense, and (3) the the proceeding, but such an amended e ppfi ation for th'e Commission's related letter. Safety petition must satisfy the specificity m n ments tha Evaluation and/or Environmental requirements desaibed above. amendment complies with the standards Assessment, asindicated. Allof these Not later than fifteen (15) days pdor to and requirements of the Atomic Ene'8Y items are available for public inspection the first prehearing conferenea Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and at the Commission's Public Document scheduled in the proceedinEN petitioner the Commission a rules and regulations. Room.1717 H Street. NW., Washingtm. shall file a supplement to the petition to The Commission has made appropriate D.C and at the local public document intervene which must include a list of rfiss o s pardcula acility invo ved. the contentions which are sought to be es and reg ations in to A C py o gtems (2) l(3) may litigated in the matter, and the bases for o CFR Chapter L which are set forth in the obtamed upon request addressed to the each contention set forth with yic nse amengent. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• reasonable specificity. Contentions shall ashington. D.C.

55. Auention:

be limited to matters within the scope of circ stan es assoc ated i th date i t ime f e Co ssion't p b s1. opportunity for a hearing with respect to petiti n of s a su lement which satisfies these us I dy tice of ons de tio'n of h'ar'c'l requirements with respect to at least one 9 5 the li ens ma ea l Issuance of Amendment and Proposed request for a hearing with respect to Participate as a party. No Significant Hazards Consideration issuance of the amendment to the H PenniMed to inknm become Determination and Opportunity for esbject facility operating license and llearing For exigent circumstances, a any person whose interest may be pania,to the proceeding, subject to any limnations in de order granundesve to press release seeking public comment as affected by this proceeding and who I""TVene, and have the opportunity to to the proposed no significant hazards wishes to participate as a party in the consideration determination was used. proceeding must file a written petition [articipate fully in the conduct of the earing,inchiding de oppommny to and the State was consulted by for leave to intervene. Requests for a telephone. In circumstances where hearing and petitions for leave to present evidence and cross-examine-witnuses. failure to act in a timely way would intervene shall be filed in accordance Since the Commission has made a have resulted, for example. in derating with the Commission's " Rules of final determination that the amendment-or shutdown of a nuclear power plant. a Practice for Domestic Ucensing j shorter public comment period (less Proceedings"in 10 CFR Part 2. If a. involves no significant hazards l than 30 days) has been offered and the request for a hearing or petition for consideration,if a hearing is requested. State consulted by telephone whenever ! cave to intervene is filed by the above it will not stay the effectiveness of the possible. date, the Commission or an Atomic amendment. Any hearing held would Under its regulations, the Commission Safety and ucensing Board. disignated take place while the amendment is la effect. may issue and make an amendment by the Commission or by the Chairman immediately effective, notwithstanding of the Atomic Safety and Ucensing A request for a hearing or a petition + the pendency before it of a request for a Board Panel, will rule on the request for leave to intervene must be filed with i hearing from any person, in advance of and/or petition and the Secretary or the the Secretary of the Commission. U.S. t the holding and completion of any designated Atomic Safety and utensing Nuclear Regulatory Commission. g required hearing, where it has Board will issue a notice of hearing or Washington D.C.20555. Attention: determined that no significant hazards an approrpriate order. Docketing and Service Branch. or may I. consideration is involved. As required by 10 CFR 2.714. a be delivered to the Commission's Public The Commission has applied the petition for leave to intervene shall set Document Room.1717 H Street NW., standards of10 CFR 50.92 and has made forth with particularity the interest of Washing %n, D C. by the above data. 4 a final determination that the the petitioner in the proceeding and how Where petitions are filed during the last l amendment involves no significant that interest may be affected by the ten (10) days ci the notice period, it is hazards consideration. The basis for this results of the proceeding. %e petition requested that the petitioner promptly so j determination is contained in the should specifically explain the reasons inform the Commission by a toll-free documents related to this action. why intervention should be permitted telephone call to Western Union at (a00) According!y. the amendments have been with particular reference to the 325-6000 (in Missoud (800) 342-6700). issued and made effective as indicated. following factors:(1) The nature of the The Western Union operator should be Unless otherwise indicated, the petitioner's right under the Act to be given Datagram Identification Number Commission has detennined that these made a party to the proceeding: (2) the 3737 and the following message amendments satisfy the criteria for nature and extent of the petitioner's addressed to (Bmach Chief): Petitioner's categorical exclusion in accordance property, financial, or other interest in name and telephone number; date I

8024 Fed;rd Registir'/ Vol. 50,' No. 39 TWidnddry', F3ruYry '271Sli5i'/ N' oticEs oetition was mailed; plant name: and Amendments Nos.:72 and 65. (Docket Nos. 50-400-04.] tblication date and page number of Facility Opemting License Nos. DPR-is Federal Register notice. A copy of 42andDPR-40: Amendments revised Camuna Pow & @t Co M die petition should a(so be sent to the the Technical Specifications. Carolina Eastern Munlcipal Power Executive LegalDirector U.S. Nuclear 8'"U I Publ e t req \\ested s to Power Plant) Assignment of Atomic Regulatory Commission, Washington-d d D.C. 20555, and to the attorney for the [n dera "I n: es.F era Re stor licensee. e Nontimely filings of petitions for leave notice January 30,1985 (50 FR 4285). Notice is hereby given that,in to intervene, amended petitions, The Commission's related evaluation accordance with the authority confstred supplemental petitions and/or requests of the amendment is contained in a by 10 CFR 2.787(a), the Chairman of the f:r hearing will not be entertamed Safety Evaluation dated February 15, Atomic Safety and ucensing Appeal 1985 Panel has assigned the following panel he p siding fficer or the No significant hazards consideration mem e t erv s th Ic Safety miss o Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board comments received: No. g, designated to rule on the petition and/or Attorneyfor thelicensee: Gerald request, that the petitioner has made a Charnoff, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Romas S. Moore. Chairman substantial showing of good cause for Trowbridge,1800 M Street, NW., Dr. Reginald L Gotchy p the granting of a late petition and/or Washington, D.C. 20036. Howard A.Wilber. request. That determination will be LocalPublicDocument Room Dated: February 21,1985. _ bued upon a balancing of the factors location: Environmental Conservation C. lean Shoemaker, spicified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and Ubrary, Minneapolis Public Ubrary,300 Secretary to the AppeciBoard. 2.714(d). Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota. (FR Doc. 85-4814 Filed 2 '8-85; 8.45 aml Commonwealth Edison Company, Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. STN 50-154. Byron Station. Docket No. 50-281, Surry Power Station, Unit 1 Ogle County, Illinois Unit No. 2, Surry County, Virgmla. [ Docket No. 50-4431 Date of Application for amendment: JInuary 18.1985. Date ofapplicationforamendment-Union Electric Co.; Consideration of Brief description of amendment Adds Januay 4,1985, as supplemented issuance of Amendment to Facility a footnote to table of Containment January 9, and January 28,1985. Operating License and Proposed No Isolation Valves to allow certain valves Briefdescription of amendment:The Significant Hazards; Consideration ' be opened intermittently under amendment revises Technical Determination and Opportunity for { ninistrative controls. Specification 4.17.A to exiend the Hearing Date ofissuance: January 18,1985. snubber inspection interval from 62 days Effective date: January 18.1985. 25% until the 1985 refueling outage. 'd es N r gugaton. l Amendment No.:1. C si n C Date ofissuance: February 1,1985. Facility Operating License No. NPF-considering issuance of an amendment - Effective date: February 1,1985. to Facility Ope sting Ucense No. NPF~ n ent revised the Techrucal Amendment No.:101. 30, issued to Union Electric Company, Public comments requested as to facility Operating License No. DPR-for operation of the Callaway Plant, Unit proposed no significant hazards 37. 1 located in Callaway County, Missouri. consideration: No. Amendment revised the Technical This amendment would revise the Comments received: No. Specifications. time period associated with Technical De Commission's related evaluation Public comments requested as to Specification Surveillance 4.6.1.6.1 by is contained in a Safety Evaluation proposed no significant hazards extending each of the three scheduled ditId January 28.1985. considera tion: Yes. January 17,1985 (50 containment vessel tendon surveillances A ttorney for licensee: Isham. Lincoln FR 2635). six (6) months. in accordance with the cnd Beale One First National Plaza. Comments received: No. licensee',s request dated February 12, i Chicago, Illinois.

• "" " #'9W LocalPublic Document Room He Commission's related evaluation

""Y location: Rockford Public Ubrary,215 N. is contained in a Safety Evaluation Wyman Street, Rockford, Illinois 61103. dated February 1,1985-inspection contractor for Union E'lectric and Alabama Power Co., are needed to Attorneyforlicensee: Michael W. evaluate anomalies recently found at the N:rthern States Power Company, Maupin Hunton and Williams, Post Farley Unit 2 plant. Union Electric Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie Office Box 1535, Richmond, Virginia Company released INRYCO to Alabama Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Cait 23213; 1 and 2, Goodhue County' Power Company so that the outage es ta Loc /PublicRoomlocation:Swem associated with the Farley problem is Date of applicationforamendment: Ubrary, College of William and Mary, not unnecessarily extended. Williamsburg Virginia 23185. Before issuance of the propo:ed J nuary 18,1985, license amendment, the Commission Description of amendments:Dese Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 20th day Y

• will have made findings required by the cmindments change the Technical Atomic Energy Act of1954, as ar ended SpIcificiation secti8n 3.3.D.2c dealing For the Nuclear Regulatory Comnu.ssion.

(the Act) and the Commissien's ~ith the allowable inoperable period of m Tourigny, regulations. cooling water headers of the service Acting Chief. Opemting Reactors Bmnch No. The Commission has made a proposed ar system.

3. Division ofLicensing.

determination that the amendment ' Date of/ssuance: February 15,1985. [m Doc. 85-4874 Filed 2-26-85,8.45 am] request involves no significant hazards Effective date: February 15,1985. Au ma coes rse&e w consideration. Under the Commission's

s F d;r:1 Regist / Vol. 50. No. 39 / W;dnesdiy, FIbru ry 27, 1985 / N::tices 8025 gulations in 10 CFR 50.92 this means to issuance of the amendment to the Those permitted to intervene become ' hat operation of the facility in subject facility operating license and parties to the proceeding subject to any accordance with the proposed any person whose interest may be limitations in the order granting leave to emendment would not (1) involve a affected by this proceeding and who intervene, and have the opportunity to significant increase'in the probability or wishes to participate as a party in the participate fully in the conduct of the. consequences cf an accident previously proceeding must file a written petition hearing, including the opportunity to evaluated; or (2) create the pocaibility of for leave to intervene. Request for a present evidence and cross-examine a new or different kind-of accident frgJn hearing and petitions for leave to witnesses. any accident previTuslievaluated; or(3) intervene shall be filed in accordance If a hearing is requested, the involve a significant reductioriin a with the Commission's " Rules of Commission will make a final margin of safety. Practice for Domestic Ucensing datermination on the issue of no The licensee's amendment application Proceeding"in to CFR Part 2. If a significant hazards consideration. The addressed the design conservatism, request for a hearing or petition for final determination will serve to decide inspections ofinstallation activities, leave to intervene is filed by the above when the hearing is held. field anchor head materials. recent field date, the Commission or an Atomic If the final determination is that the inspection results, and expected results Safety and ucensing Board, designated amendment request involves no from the initialinservice tendon by the Commission or by the Chairman significant hazards consideration. the surveillance for the Callaway post of the Atomic Safety and Ucensin8 Commission may issue the arqcydment i tensioning system.The initial Board Panel, will rule on the request and make it effective, notwitEsTanding installation inspections and recent field and/or petition and the Secretary or the the request for a hearing. Any hearing inspections have confirmed the designated Atomic Safety and ucensin8 held would take place after issuance of conti;:uing tendon integrity so that a six Board willissue a notice of hearing or the amendment. i month extension in the time for further an appropriate order. If the final determination is that the detailed tendon surveillance will not As required by 10 CFR 2J14. a amendment involves a significant significantly increase the probability of petition for leave to intervene shall set hazards consideration, any hearing held tendon failure and will therefore, not forth with particularity the interest of would take place before the issuance of increase the probabihty or the petitioner in the proceeding. and any amendment. consequences of any previously how that interest may be affected by the Normally, the Commission will not analyzed accident. Because the results of the proceeding.The petition issue the amendment until the proposed extension of the timo for should specifically explain the reasons exp ration of the 30-day notice period. I cctailed tendon surveillance will not why m, tervention should be permitted However, should circumstances change impact tendon mtegrity, will not affect with particular reference to the during the notice period such that failure the method and manner of plant following fac, tors: (1) The nature of the to act in a timely way would result, for i operation, and will not affect petitioner's nght under the Act to be example. In derating or shutdown of the components and equipment important to made a party to the proceeding: (2) the facility, the Commission may issue the safe operation, the proposed amendment nature and extent of the petitioner's. license amendment before the does not create the possibility of a new property, financial, or other interest in expiration of the 30-day notice period, and different accident from any the proceeding; and (3) the possible provided that its fina determination is previously evaluated. Because recent effect of any order which may be '~ field inspections showed no evidence of entered in the proceeding on the that.the amendment involves no aza s consi ra n e tendon failure and because containment petitioner's interest. The petition should {Qc q prestress levels are not expected to also identify the specific aspects of the public and State comments received. decrease by any sigmficant degree m, subject matter of the proceeding as t Should the Commission take this action, j the proposed six month period of, which petr.ioner wishes to intervene. surveillance extension, tlus revision to Any person who has filed a petition for it will publish a notice of issuance and the Technical Specifications will not leave to intervene or who has been provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expect! significantly reduce any margins of admitted as a party may amend the that the need to take this action will safety. On these bases, the staff petition without requesting leave of the prepotes to determine that this Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the occur very infrequently. i amendment extending the tendon first prehearing conference scheduled in A request for a hearing or a petition j for leave to intervene must be filed with surveillance period does not involve the proceeding, but such an amended h significant hazards considerations. petition must satisfy the specificity. the Secretary of the Commission. U.S. i The Commission is seeking public requirements described above. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. h comments on this proposed Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to Washington, D.C. 20555. Attention: ) determination. Any comments received the first prehearing conference Docketing and Service Branch, or may g within 30 days after the date of scheduled in the proceeding a petitioner be delivered to the Commission's Public 1 1 publication of this notice will be shall file a supplement to the petition to Document Room,1717 H Street. NW., i considered in making any final intervene which must include a list of Washington. D C., by the above date, j determination. The Commission will not the contentions which are sought to be Where petitions are filed during the last normally make a final determination litigated in the matter, and the bases for ten (10) days of the notice period, it is unless it receives a request for a each contention set forth with requested that the petitioner promptly so 1 hearing. reasonable specificity. Contentions shall inform the Commission by a toll-free Comments should be addressed to the be limited to matters within the scope of telephone call to Western Union at (800) l Se::retary of the Commission. U.S. the amendment under consideration. A 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 324-6700). Nuclear Regulatory Commission, petitioner who fails to file such a The Western Union operator should be 3 Washington D.C.20555. Attn: Docketing supplement which eatisfies these given Datagram Identification N"mber and Service Branch. requirements with respect to at least one 3737 and the following message By March 28.1985 the licensee may contention will not be permitted to addressed to B. J. Youngblood; I.. file a request for a hearing with respect - participate as a party. . petitioner's name and telephone 0 9

[- -- 8026 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 1985*/ Notices nber; date petition was mai!ed; plant the Program if they had previously SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOecDe ~ e: and publication date and page waived all coverage. Such elections Office of Personnel Management aber of this Federal Register notice, would become effective in August,1985. published its last monthly notice i updating appolnting authorities a copy of the petition should also be FOR FURTMER thFORMATION CONTACT: - established or revoked under the, sent to the Executive Legal. Director, John Ray. Office of Pay and Benefits Excepted Service provisions of 5 CFR U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,' Policy,(202) 254-7053 or Anne Easton, Part 213 on January 28,1985 (50 FR % ashincton, D.C. 20555, and to Gerald Office of Insurance Program. (202) 632-3852). Individual authorities established-e Charnoff. Esquire, Shaw, I#ttman. Potts r 4670 Office of Persormel Management, or revoked under Schedules A, B, or C & Trowbridge.1800 M Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20415. Washington, D.C. 20038, attorney for the between January 1,1985 and January 31 j SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiosc FEGU 1985 appear in a listing below. Future licensee. Nontimely filings of petitions for leave premiums were reduced effect ve with notices will be published on the fourth to intervene, amended petitions, the first full pay period begmning on or Tuesday of each month, or as soon as supplemental petitions and/or requests after May 1,1984. When the premium possible thereafter. A consolidated i for hearing will not be entertained reductions were introduced, OPM listing of all authorities will be I absent a determination by the announced that we would monitor the published as of June 30 of each year. Commission, the presiding officer or the experience under these rates and,if that Atomic Safety and Licensing Board experience sustained the new rates, we Schdule A g' designated to rule on the petition and/or would schedule a FEGU open T. - following exception is revoked: request, that the petitioner has made a enrollment period to allow employees to substantial showing of good cause for change their insurance coverage. Our Cis Aeronautics Board the granting of a late petition and/or review of the experience to date g g g request.That determination will be indicates positive results and we granted CAB to fill positions that would tased upon a balancmg of the factors propose to permit an open enrolhnent not be transferred to other agencies has s pecified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and period for FEGU during the month of expired by its own terms.ne authority 2.714(d). June 1985. Elections made during the Pennitted employment only ge For further details with respect to this open enrollment period would become agency,a closing on December 31,1964. action, see the application for effective in August 1985. """"U amendment which is available for public Unlike the March 1981 open inspection at the Commission's Public enrollment period. OPM will not require Schedule B Document Room 1717 H Street, NW., a positive reenrollment of all FEGU 'Ibe following exceptions are Washington. D.C., and at the Fulton City eligibles. Only those employees who established: Trary. 709 Market Street, Fulton, wish to change their participation status isouri 65251 and the Olin Library of or their levels of coverage will have to NationalEndowment for the Humanifies (~ ashington University, Skinker and comple'a an election form. Previous One Humam. t Admim trator, ce*, s s Lindell Boulevards. St. Louis, Missouri waivers or declinations of coverage will disciplines in Undergraduate Education 63130. not be cancelled unless the employee Pmgrams, Division onducanon s submits a new election. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland. this 21st day Pmgrams. EHecun Januay it N of February 1985. Regulations to effect an open For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. enrollment period for the ECU Program One Humani,st Administrator, B. J. Youngblood, will be introduced in the Federal Exemplary Pmlects, Nontraditional Learners and Teaching Materials Chief. Licensing smach No. I Division of Register wellin advance of the proposed Licens9g event. Detailed guidance will be. Program, Division of Education [m Doc. 854813 Fded 2-:585. 8 45 am) provided agencies and employing officea Programs. Effective January 11,1985. via Federal Personnel Manual Letters Schedule C .ma coo, r j o* and Bulletins concerning the material to be used, and the shipping and ne following exceptions are OFFICE OF PERSONNEL distribution schedules. ' established: MANAGEMENT Donald i Devine, Department ofAgriculture 5 U.S. Office ofPersonnelManageanent. One Confidential Assistant to the Federal Employee's Group Ufe [FR Doc. aWo3 Fued 26 H5 am) Admim,strator Food and Nutrition i In:urance Program; 1985 Open Service. Effective January 15,1985. Enronment Period One SMal Assistant to the AT ENcy: Office of Personnel Secretary. Effective January 17,1985. j Excepted Service Management. One Staff Assistant fryping) to the i ACTION: Notice of Intent to Conduct an AoENcy: Office of Personnel Administrator, Rural Electrification Open Enrollment O,pportunity for the Management. Administration. Effective January 24 Federal Employees Group Life AcTioet Notice. 1985. Insurance (FECLI) Program. One Staff Assistant to the Executive sUMMAny:This gives notice of positions Assistant to the Secretary. Effective suuuAny:The Office of Personnel placed or revoked under Schedules A B. January 30,1985. Minagement (OPM) announces its and C in the excepted service, as intent to conduct an open enrollment xriod from June 1 through June 30,1985, required by civil service rule VI, Department of Commeme ring which time employees otherwise Exceptions from the Competitive One Congressional Liaison Specialist Service. .gible to participate in the FEGU to the Assistant Secretary for Program will have an opportunity to add fon runTwen INronmation cowrAcT: Congressional and Intergovernmental to their existing coverages or to enrollin Tracy Spencer (202) 632-e000. Affairs. Effective January 10,1985. a

~ .,1 Fed;r:1 Regist;r / Vol. 50 No. 39 / W:dnIsdiy, Februa'y 27,1985 / Sun:hin Act Meetings 9047 r Dated: February 25,1985. Affirmation Meeting (Public Meeting) (if ,7 needed) James McAfee., AssociateSecretaryof the Boortf. Week of March 11-Tentative Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the (FR Doc 85-4859 Filed 2-2585: 11.45 am) 7besday, Aforch12 provisions of the Government in the mmo caos as"" too p m. Sunshine Act, Pub. t. 94-409, that the Bnefing by Staff on Use of Check Pilot Securities and Exchange Commission 6 Approach for Reactor Operator will hold the following meeting during Requehfication (Public Meeting) the week of March 4,1965. e NUCLEAR REGU_LATgFtY COMMISSION i Weeks of February 25. Mar'ch 4. Wednesday. Afarch 13 A closed meeting will be held on DATE: 11, and 18,1985. 2:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 5,1965, at 2:30 p.m. Discussion of Managment-Organization The Commissioners, Counsel to the PLACE:Comrru.ssioner s Conference and Intemal Personnel Matters Commissioners, the Secretary of the y Room.1717 H Street NW., Washmgton, (closedW 2 & e)(Tentative) Commission. and recording secretaries i R C. Thursday. Afarch n will attend the closed meeting. Certain STATUS:Open and Closed. staff members who are responsible for 1000 a.m. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Briefing on Further Actions on Source Term the calendated matters may be present. [ (Public Meeting) The General Counsel of the-Week of Febmary 25 3.30 p.m. Commission, or his design $F, has t Afonday. February 25 Affirmative Meeting (Public Meeting) (if certified that, in his opinion, the items to "d'dl 3:00 p.m. be considered at the closed meeting may, Status Report and Diecussion of Options on Week of March 18-Tentative be considered pursuant to one or more Shoreham (Closed-Ex.10) Wednesday. Afaxh20 of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. f Tuesday. February 26 200 m. 552b(c) (4), (8), (9)(A) and (10) and 17 10:00 a.m. Bn fing by NUMARC on Status of CFR 200.402(a)(4), (8), (9)(1) and (10). Discussion of Pending Investigations NUMARC Initiatives (Public Meeting) Commissioner Cox, as duty officer, v ted to consider the items listed for the j; (Closed-Ex. 5 & 7) Thursday, Afaich 21 200 p.m. closed meeting in closed session. Discussion /Possible Vote on Full Power 10-o0 a.m. The subject matter of the closed j Operatmg 1.icense for Waterford-3 Discussion of Proposed Revisions to Part 35 (Public Meetmg) lic Muting meeting scheduled for Tuesdsy, March 5,1985, at 2:30 p.m., will be: j Thursday. february 28 Affirmation Meeting (Public Meeting) (if Formal orders ofinvestigation. I 2:15 p.m. needed) Settlement of administrative proceedings of j Affirmation Meeting (Public Meetmg) (if ADDITION AL INFORMATION: Affirmation an enforcement nature. needed) og Implementation of Convention on At times changes in Commission I ~ Nssion of Management-Organization Physical Protection" (Public Meetingl priorities require alterations in the D f and Intemal Personnel Matters (Closed-was held on February 22. scheduling of meeting items. For further Ex. 2 & 6) TO VERIFY THE STATUS OF MEETINGS information and to ascertain Whalif b CALL (RECORDING): (202) 634-1498. any, matters have been added,' deleted Week of March 4-Tentative CONrACT PERSON FOR MORE or postponed, please contact: Wednesday. Afarch o INFORMATION:Julia Corrado (202) 634-David Wescoe at (202) 272-2002. 2.00 p.m. 1410. Bnefing on EEO Program (Public Meeting)

• 1. I Dated February 21.1985.

Thursday. Afaxh 7 Andrew L Bates, W 11D0 a.m. Office oftheSecretary. Meeting with Advisory Panel on TMI-2 (FR Doc. 85-4812 Filed 2-22-a5: 4:37 pm) (HL Doc. Sb4012 Filed 3-25-85; 3:55 pm) leanup (Public Meeting) su.useo cocc m w seu.seo caos sous-as te \\ t< l 1 l k 4 I e .}}