ML20155C048
Text
_ _ _ - _ _ _
hhh Ok
/
o UNITED STATES
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
3 WASHIN.GTON, D.C. 20555
/
M6-April 1, 1985 cEfsSION
/J*
MEMORANDUM FOR: Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman FROM:
Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Lv.
c,
SUBJECT:
REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING SH0LLY AMENDMENT There is considerable discussion on our implementation of the Sholly Amendment in the recent Investigative Staff Report to the House Appro-priations Comittee.
In looking into the background, I learned that NRC
, ~
published two interim final rules in May, 1983.
It is my understanding that we solicited comments cn these interim rules and the staff submitted a proposed final rule sometime thereafter.
Now that almost two years have gone by since the publication of the interim rules, I would appreciate a status report on this project.
I want to be assured that our procedures implementing the Sholly Amendment are not using resources unnecessarily because of an overly-restrictive interpreta-tion of the requirements of that amendment.
cc: Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal SECY ED0 OPE OGC ELD /
4 a
L m
ne1
E
,7
/)R(,14 POR I
Wednesday March 27,1985 l
s; m __-a
'i nd M
e kA r 1B T b
-d i
$3 3
tit" m
i=
Part til a
e i
1 I
Nuclear Regulatory r=
i F
3 Commission Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses involving No
(
3 Significant Hazards Considerations; Monthly Notice EF 4 _
3 m-da f
E E
~
12132 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednesday March 27. 1985 / Notices s-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Comments should be addressed to the be limited to matters within the scope of Secretary of the Commission. U.S.
the amendment under consideration. A App!! cations and Amendments to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, petitioner who fails to file such a Operating Ucenses tnvolving No Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Significant Hazarda Considerations; Docketing and Service Branch.
supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least ona By April 26,1985 the licensee may file contention will not be permitted to MontNy Notice a request for a hearing with respect to participate as a party.
I. Background issuance of the amendment to the Pursuant to Public Law (Pub. L) 97-subject facility operating license end
%ose permitted to intervene become 415, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission any person whose interest may be parties to the proceeding. subject to any (the Commission)is publishing its affected by this proceeding and who h'mitations in the order granting leave to -
regular monthly notice. Public Law 9%
wishes to participate as a party in the intervene, and have the opportunity to proceeding must file a written petition participate fully in the conduct of the 415 revised section 189 of the Atomic for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing, including the opportunity to Energy Act of 1954. as amended (the hearing and petitions for leave to present evidence and cross-examine Act). to require the Commission to witnesses.
publish notice of any amendments intervene shall be filed in accordance issued, or proposed to be issued. under a with the Commission's " Rules of If a hearing is requested. the new provision of section 189 of the Act.
Practice for Domestic Ucensing Commission will make a final This provision grants the Commission Proceedings"in 10 CFR Part 2. lf a determination on the issue of no the authority to issue and make request for a hearing or petition for significant hazards consideration. The immediately effective any amendment leave to intervene is filed by the above f nal determination will serve to decide to an operating license upon a date, the Commission or an Atomic when the hearing is held.
determination by the Commission that Safety and Ucensing Board, designated If the final determination is that the by the Commission or by the Chairman amendement request involves no such amendment involves no significant of the Atomic Safety and Ucensing significant hazards consideration, the hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of Board Panel, will rule on the request Commission may issue the amendment and/or petition and the Secretary or the and make it immediately effective.
a request for a hearing from any erson.
This monthly notice includes a 1 designated Atomic Safety and Licensing notwithstanding the request for a amendments issued, or proposed to be Board willissue a notice of hearing or hearing. Any hearing held would take igsued. since the date of publication of an appropriate order.
place afterissuance of the amendment.
the last monthly notice which was As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a If the final determination is that the published on February 27,1985 (50 FR petition for leave to intervene shall set amendment involves a significant 7979) through March 18.1085.
forth with particularity the interest of hazard'
d b
held the petitioner in the proceeding and
,g ]d take plac b f e the is u ce of NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF how that interest may be affected by the
""[,*"'jj, h",t.
dm ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO results of the proceeding.The petition y
Commission will not FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND should specifically explain the reasons issue the amendment until the PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT why intervention should be permitted exp ration of the 30-day notice period.
HAZARDS CONSIDERATION With particular reference to the However, should circumstances change DETERMINATION AND I UO*2"8,fac, tors:(1)The nature of the during the notice period such that failure OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING petitioner s nght under the Act to be to act in a timely way would result, for The Commission has made a proposed made a party to the proceeding; (2) the example,in derating or shutdown of the determination that the following nature and extent of t):: petitioner's facility, the Commission may issue the amendment requests involve no property, financial, or other interest in license amendment before the significant hazards consideration. Under the proceeding: and (3) the possible expiration of the 30-day notice period, the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR effect of any order which may be provided that its final determination is E92, this means that operation of the entered in the proceeding on the that the amendment involves no facility in accordance with the proposed petitioner's interest. The petition should significant hazards consideration. The amendments would not:(1) Involve a also identify the specific aspect (s) of the final determination will consider all significant increase in the probability or subject matter of the proceeding as to public and State comments received consequences of an accident previously which petitioner wishes to intervene.
before action is taken. Should the Any person who has filed a petition for Commission take this action,it will evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of leave to intervene or who has been publish a notice ofissuance and provide a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) admitted as a party may amend the.
for opportunity foi a hearing after involve a significant reduction in a petition without requesting leave of the issuance. The Commission expects that margin of safety. The basis for this Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the the need to take this action will occur proposed determination for each first pehearing conference scheduled in very infrequently.
. amendment recuest is shown below.
the proceeding. but such an amended A request for a hearing or a petition The Commission is seening public petition must satisfy the specificity forleave to intervene must be filed with comments on this proposed requirements described above.
the Secretary of the Commisison, U.S.
Not later than fifteen (15) days the first prehearing conference. prior to N.aear Regulatory Commission, determination. Any comments received Washington, D.C. 20555. Attention:
within 30 days after the date of pubhcation of this notice will be scheduled in the proceeding. a petitioner Docketing and Service Branch, or may considered in making any final shall file a supplement to the petition to be delivered to the Commission's Public determina tion. The Commission will not intervene which must include a list of Document Roem.1717 H Street. NW normally make a final determination the contentions which are sought to be unless it receives a request for a litigated in the matter, and the bases for Washington, D.C by the above date.
hearing.
each contention set forth with Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period. it is reasonable specificity. Contentions shall requested that the petitioner promptly so
t 1
j Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednesday. March 27, 1985 / Notices 12133 inform the Commission by a toll-free setpoint should provide allowance that Commission (48 FR 14870) namely, a telephone call to Western Union at (600) there will be sufficient water inventory change which"may reduce in some way 325. 6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700).
in the steam generators at the time of a safety margin but where the results of The Western Union gerator should be the trip to provide sufficient margin the change are clearly within all given Datagram idenufication Number before emergency feedwater is required. acceptable criteria with respect to the 3737 and the following message Automatic actuation of the Emergency system as specified in the Standard addressed to (Branch Ch7ef): Petitioner's Feedwater System (EFWS) is initiated Review Plan." %us, the staff proposes name and telephone number; date when several parameters, including the to determine that the application petition was mailed; plant name; and steam generator water level reach the involves no significant hazards 4
i publication date and page number of ESFAS trip values.
consideration.
~
this Fedetal Register notice. A copy of Basis forproposedno significant LocalPublic Document Room the petition should also be sent to the hazonfs consideration determination:
location:Tomlinson Ubrary. Arkansas Executive Legal Director. U.S. Nuclear The loss of normal feedwster flow is Tech University.Russellville. Arkansas j
Regulatory Commission. Washington, analyzed in Chapter 15 of the ANO-2 72801.
D C. 20555, and to the attorney for the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Attorney forlicensee: Nicholas S.
licensee.
(UFSAR). There. the setpoint for the Reynolds. Esq., Bishop. Uberman. Cook.
Nontimely filings of petitions forleave steam generator low water level used in purcell and Reynolds.1200 Seventeenth to intervene, amended petitions, the accident analyses is 5% The Street NW Washington.D.C. 20036.
3 supplemental petitions and/or requests applicable ESFAS trip value is also 5%
NRCBranch Chief; james R. Miller.
d for hearing will not be entertained in the accident analyses.The results of absent a determination by the the loss of normal feedwater flow Arkansas Power & Ught Company.
Docket No. 50-368. Arkansas Nuclear Commission, the presidmg officer or the analysis show that the plant protection One. Unit 2. Pope County Arkansas Atomic Safety and utensing Board system consisting of the Reactor designated to rule on the petition and/or Protective System (RPS) and the ESFAS Date of amendment request: January a
L request. that the petitioner has made a will assure that the fuel design limit is 28.1985.
f substantial showing of good cause for not exceeded and that the steam Description of amendment request:
the granting of a late petition and/or generator heat removal capability is The proposed amendment would revise request. That determination will be maintamed in the event of a loss of the Technical Specifications (TS) to based upon a balancmg of the factors normal feedwater flow.The analyses remove the rod bow penalty factor specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)-(v) setpoint of 5%. when corrected for surveillance requirement. Specifically, a
and 2.714(d].
equipment errors and measurement TS 4.2.4.4 which requires that certain For further details w,th respect to this uncertainties, results in a proposed DNBR penalty factors shall be verified i
l cction. see the application for setpomt of 23%
to be included in the COLES and CPC amendment which is available for pubh,c in the December 21.1984 application.
DNBR calculations periodically would mspection at the Commission s Pubhc the licensee states that the present tnp be deleted-g a
Document Room.1717 H Street. NW.,
setpoint was selected during the initial panu Washington. D.C.. and at the local licensing review of ANO-2 in order to ER o de v lu 9
pubhc document rocm for the particular resolve questions concerning calculated from reactor core thermal-facihty mvolved.
asymmetnc steam generator events.
hydraulic conditions on a real-time basis
+
ce se e L
Arkansas Power & Light Company.
in((a" p{a from an NRC approved empirical d its
, 9 correlation. it is a measure of thermal Docket No. 50-368. Arkansas Nuclear Calculators (CPC) software to include margin. Maintaining core conditions One. Unit 2, Pope County Arkansas cold leg temperature difference bias such that DNBR is above a prescribed j
Date of amendment request; algorithm to provide a reactor trip in the value ensures that the fuel cladding will t
j December 21.1984 event of an asyrnmetric steam generator not oserheat during normal and Description of amendment requesti transient. This modification was abnormal plant operation.The CPC 3
The proposed amendment would revise reviewed and approved by the NRC (Core Protection Calculators), which are 3
the steam generator low water level trip staff in its Safety Evaluation dated [une an integral part of the reactor protection setpoints specified in Table 2.2-1 and 19,1981, Table 3.3-4 of the Technical in addition to our preliminary review system (RPS) at ANO-2, monitor certam NSSS variables and initiate a reactor Specifications (TS). Specifically, the of the loss of normal feedwater flow trip if fuel design limits are approached g
i y
I reactor protective instrument trip event and our review of the asymmetric as a result of an abnormal event.The setpoint and the Engineered Safety steam generator transient, we performed COLSS (Core Operating Limit Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) trip a preliminary review of all other events Supenisory System)is a monitoring value for the steam generator low water in Chapter 15 of the ANO-2 UFSAR. No level would be reduced from 46.7% to adverse effects resulting from the system which continuously calculates and advises operators of margins to core i
23%. Similarly, the allowable values in proposed changes have been identified t'
these tables would be reduced by the in our review. Therefore, the change is operating limits on fuel design and the same magnitude from 45.811% to clearly within all acceptable criteria licensed power level.The COLSS
{h 22.111%. Reducing these setpoints is with the Reactor Coolant System and its provides an alarm if any one of the corea expected to reduce the probability of associated auxiliaries as contained in operating limits is exceeded.
l unnecessary reactor trips during certain Section15.2.7 of the Standard Review In Supplement No.1 to the Safety planned operating nrmivers, such as Plan (SRp). " LOSS OF NORMAL Evaluation Report (NUREG-0308) of manual control of steam generator water FEEDWATER FLOW" which is the June 1978 for the issuance of the ANO-2 levels at low power.
applicable section of the SRP for the operating license, the NRC staff required that certain conservative DNBR penalty The purpose of the steam generator systems involved.
factors due to rod bowing as functions low water level reactor trip is to provide Therefore the proposed changes j
protection against a loss of normal match an example of"no significant of fuel burnups be used in DNBR feedwater flow incident.The reactor trip hazard" In the guidance provided by the calc iations.The above requirement f
e i
.e 12134 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27.1985/ Notices was imposed since ANO-2 was the !and proposed changes would make the Purcell and Reynoida,1500 Scvantanoth plant with Combustion Engineering (CE) values in the TS consistent with the Street. NW., Washington, D.C. mosa. -
16x16 fuel design: therefore, there was present ranges of these addressable NRCRiunch Chief Jamaa R. Miller.
no irradiated fuel data germane to the constants.The core protection CE 16x16 fuel desia'p at the time.
calculators (CPC) addressable constants 0
r-Since the issuance of the ANO-2 are provided to allow calibration of the Ar anna N operating license. CE bas accumulated CPC for more accurate indications of One. Unit No. 2. Pope County Arkansas -
and studied irradiated fuel data specific power level. RCS flow, and radial Date of amendment requese January to ANO-2. A CE report, CEN-289( A).
peaking. In addition, the CPC 28,1985.
provides the results of the CE study.ne addressable constants allow inclusion of Description ofamendrnent mquese report, which was submitted by the allowances for measurement ne proposed amendment would revise licensee in support of the proposed TS uncertaintics or inoperable equipment.
the Technical Specifications (TS) change, supports the use of a single The addressable constants are variables pertaining to the core protection lower value for the DNBR penalty factor which are expected to be modified calculators (CPC) addressable constants due to rod bowing. The single DNBR between cycles or even during reactor to accommodate the CPC functional penalty factor would be included in the operation. By a Safety Evaluation dated modifications discussed in CEN-2ss(A)
CPC and COLSS softwares. This would June to.1981, the NRC staff appmved a which was submitted by letter dated eliminate the need for determining the provision in the TS. i.e. TS 2.2.2. which November 9,1964. De CPC are an DNBR penalty factor for each batch of allows the licensee to modify the integralpart of the ANO-2 reactor fuel assemb!ies based on its burnup and addressable constants in accordance protection system (RPS).%e verifying the applic.3on of correct with the approved methodology and addressable constants serve,many CPC renalty factors in DNBR calculations.
procedures to accommodate the fact functions.Some addressable constants Basis forpmposedno significant that the addressable constants are are provided to allow calibration of the hazards consideration determinationi expected to be modified even dums CPC for more accurate indication of The Commission has provided guidance reactor operation.The amendment power level. reactor coolant flowrate concerning the application of these request dated January 28,1985 involves and radial peaking. Other addressable standards by providing certain three additionalissues which will be constants allow inclusion of allowances examples (48 FR 14870). One of the addressed in separate notices.
for measurement uncertainties or examples of actions involving no Basisforproposedno signife hozords considemtion determm,' cont inoperable equipment.De proposed significant hazards considerations atioor relates to a relief granted upon The Commission has provided guidance changes replace one addressable constant and add two new addressable demonstration of acceptable operation concerning the application of standards constants to Table 2.2-2 of the TS.
frorn an operating restriction that was for det:rmmmg whether a proposed imposed because acceptable operation license amendment involves a The amendment request dated was not yet demonstrated.
sigmficant hazards consideration by january 28,1985 involves three The proposed change appears to be providing certam examples (48 FR additionalissues which will be similar to the above example in that the 14870) of amendments not likely to addressed in separate notices.
CE study based on the ANO-2 involve significant hazards 0####[##P##P#### ## #i "i[i###.#
irradiated fuel data appears to support considerations.One of the examples hozords consi,demtion detemination.-
occeptable operation of ANO-2 without relates to a change which either may ne Commission has provided guidance the rod bow penalty factor surveillance result in some increase to the concerning the application of standards requirement. Thus, the NRC staff probability or consequences of a for determirung whether a proposed proposes to determine that the proposed previously analyzed accident or may in license amendment involves a change invoh es no significant hazards some way reduce a margin of safety, but sigmficant hazards consideration by consideration.
where the results of the change are providing certain exaraples (48 FR LocolPublic Document Room clearly within all acceptance criteria 14870) of amendments not likely to location:Tomlmson Library, Arkansas with respect to the system or component involve sigraficant hazards Tech University. Russellville Arkansas specified in the Standard Review Plan considerations.One of the examples 72801.
(SRP): For example a change resulting relates to a change which either may Attorneyforlicensee: Nicholas S.
from the application of a small result in some increases to the Reynolds. Esq, Bishop. Liberman. Cook.
refinement of a previously used probability of consequences of a Purcell and Reynolds.1200 Seventeenth calculational model or design method.
previously analyzed accident or may in Street. NW., Wa shington. D.C. 20038.
It appears that the proposed changes some way reduce a margin of safety, but NRC Branch Chief: }amas R. Miller.
are simi.o to the example cited in that where the results of the change are Arkansas Power and ught Company, they are rek.~oents of the previously clearly within all acceptance critena Docket No. 50468, Arkansas Nuclear used calculatiool model for calibrating with respect it the system or component One, Unit No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas the CPC as a resut. ofimproved specified in the Standard Review Plan monitoring and additional operational (SRP): For example, a change resulting Date of amendment request: January experience.
from the application of a small 28,1985.
On the basis of the above, the NRC refinement of a previously used Description of amendment request:
staff proposes to determine that the calculational model or design method.
De proposed amendment would revise requested actions involve no significant Each of the three proposed changes Table 2.2-2," CORE PROTECTION hazards consideration.
appears to be similar to the example CALCULATOR ADDRESSABLE Locc/Public Document Room cited and thus the NRC staff proposes CONSTASTS". to change the allowable location:Tomlinson Library, Arkansas to determine that the proposed changes ranges of the azimuthal tilt allowance Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas involve no sigmficant hazards (TR) the primary delta T calibration 72801.
consideration. A description of each constant (TPC) and the neutron flux Attorneyforlicensee: Nicholas S.
proposed change to the 13 and a power calibration constant (KCAL).%e Reynolds. Esq., Bishop. IJberman. Cook, discussion of how each change is similar
v..
,.9, =
i I
I Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 50 / Wednesday Mardi 27, 1985 / Nobces 12135 q
to the example cited are addressed Number 98).%e addressable constant
. He DNBR is a un!tless welue O
below:
CORR 1 is currently defined as calculated from reactor care thermel-h.
- 1. Reactor Power Cgtback Le Limit
" Temperature Shadowing Factor hydrau!ic conditions on a real-time baala N
fRPCL/Aff-ne pro ed charge would Correction Multiplier". Temperature from an NRC approved empincel 1% ]
revise Table 2.2-2 of TS to add the Shadowing is the decalibration of ex.
correlation..It is a measure of thenaal addressable constant
,UM core neutron Dux power resulting from margin. Maintaining core conditicas f.
Number 1031. The CPC algorith,TPoint ID (j
ms which changes in the reactor coolant density such that DNBR is above a preacnbad include RPCUh! are a part of a standard between the reactor core and the ex-value ensures that the fuel claddmg wEl J
CPC software package update provided core detectors.The proposed change not overheat during normal and
)
e to the licensee by Combustion would redefine the addressable constant abnormal plant operation.ne CPC, Engineering (CE) the CPC vendor. Even CORR 1 as " Reference Cold Leg which are an integral part of the reectar i
thoy;h ANO-2 does not contain the Temperature" consistent with the CPC protection system (RPS) at ANO-2, hardware necessary to implement temperature shadowing algorithm monitor certain NSSS variables and reactor power cutback. the reactor modification and would reclassify it as a initiate a reactor trip if fuel design limits power cutback algorithms will be Type I addressable constant (Type I are approached as a result of an included in the ANO-2 CPC update in constants require periodic calibration).
abnormal event.ne CPC addressable order to :aduc e the differences with the The CPC temperature shadowing constants are provided to allow CPC sp: cms installed at other CE algorithm modification which is calibration of the CPC to more reactors.He effect of these algorithms discussed in CEN/288CA) would result accurately predict reactor power levels on the ANO-2 CPC will be nulhfied in the temperature shadowira correction and radial power peaking factors and to through setti:g the applicable data base factor multiplier being redefaed as a allow the CPC to account foe i
and addressab!e constant to zero.
fixed constant in the CPC software.
measurement uncertainties or The proposed change is similar to the The proposed change combine with inoperable equipment.
example cited in that the chang would the CPC temperature shadowing in support of the revised rod bow provide for future refinement of the CPC algorithm modification would provide a DNER penalty, the licensee has t.
by the addition of algorithms to support more accurate indication of power near submitted a CE report, CEN-289(A).De a
a reactor power cutback system.
the normal conditions and a more CE report presents a refined Furthermore. the proposed change will conservative temperature shadowing calculational model based on not increase the probability or correction at conditions other than the accumulated irradiated fuel data consequences of a previously analyzed normal conditions.
specific to ANO-2.ne present rod bow wo be eact vated y t.
use of
.The proposed change appears to be DNBR penalty is calculated based on simdar t b example cited in that it is extrapolation from a model for the 0
appropriate addressable constant and a refinement of a previously esed 14 x14 fuel design.ne ANO-2 core dats base calculational model for correctmg ex.
contains 177 fuel assemblies of the L
- 2. Secondary Colorimetric Power core detector signals for the effects of 16x16 fuel design.%e proposed DNBR C
(PCAUB,L-ne proposed change would I
resise Table 2.2-2 of the TS to add the temperature shadowing. Furthermore, limit would account for the new rod bow addressable constant PCAUB (Point ID the proposed change would enhance the DNBR penalty.
Number lot). De PCAUB is defined as RPS's ability to meet the criteria in a Safety Evaluation (SE) dated July
~
i<
calorimetric power at the time of the specified in SRP Section 7.2," Reactor 21,1981, the NRC staff approved a -
F Iztest CPC thermal and neutron flux Trip Systems"in that it would enhance temporary adjustment on the BERR1 power calibration. His addressable the CPC's ability to sense accident addressable constant using an NRC i;
constant would be added to one of the conditions and to initiate a reactor trip approved method to incorporate the
. CPC algorithms which would apply a when required.
difference between the NRC approved w
LocalPublic Document Room DNBR limit and the original CPC design f
~ power dependent power measurement
. uncertainty. Under the curient 73, a location:Tomlinson ubrary, Arkansas DNBR limit. The proposed amendment t
Tech University, Russellville Arkansas would incorporate the penalties constant power measurement uncertainty for all power levels is 72801.
previously accounted for by the BERR1 applied in the CPC algorithms. The Attorney for licensee: Nii.iolas S.
addresse.ble constant into the new proposed change would result in the Reynolds Esq., Bishop, Uberman, Cook, DNBR limit.
9 application of unproved power Purcell and Reynolds.1200 Seventeenth As a result of the two adjustments on i
measurement uncertainties since they Street. NW., Washington, DC 20036.
the DNBR limit discussed above, the vary with power levels. Thus,it appears NRCBranch Chief: James R. Miller.
DNBR limit would be revised from 1.24 to 1.25.
that the proposed change is similar to Arkansas Power and UgM Company.
The proposed change on the DNBR the example cited in thatit is a small eket No. N68, Arkansas Nucsaar 1 mit is only one of four issues addressed refinement of the previously used e, Unit No. 2, Pope County, Mansas in the application.De other issues will i
calculational model. Further, the I
proposed change would enhance the Date ofcmendment requeste January be the subject of separate notices.
A RPS's ability to meet the criteria 28,1985.
Basis forproposedno significant speciined in SRP Section 7.2 " Reactor Description of amendment nquest:
hozords considerction determination:
Tnp System" in that it would enhance ne amendment would revise the The Commission has provided guidance,
the CPC's ability to sense accident departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio concerning the applications of standards
}
conditions and to initiate a reactor trip (DNBR) limit used by the Core for determining whether a signincant i
when appropriate.
Protection Calculators (CPC) to hazards consideration exists by
- 3. Temperature Shodowing Correction incarporate the findings of a recently providing certain examples (48 Ilt Factor Afu/tiplier(CORRt)--The completed Combustion Engineering (CE) 14870) of amendments that are proposed change would revise Table study on rod bow penalty and penalties considered not likely to invohe i
2.2-2 of the TS to redefine the previously accounted for by one of the significant hazards considerations. One addressable cmstant CORR 1(Point ID CPC addressable constants.
of the examples relates to a change
12136 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 1985 / Notices which either may result in some significantly different from those found Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 which increase to the probability or previously acceptable to the NRC for a included a change to % 3/4.7.8.1.'Ihis consequences of a previously analyzed previous core at the facility in question change allowed DG&E to replace accident or may reduceen some way a are involved. This assumes that no snubbers with rigid supports (swsy safct) margin. but whe4e the rewits of significant changes are made to the struts). During the Unit 1 Cycle 8 the change are clearly within all.
acceptance critena for the technical refueling outage. BG&E will replact a acceptable criteria with repect to the specifications. that the analytical number of snubbers with sway struts as system or component spccified in the methods used to demonstrate permitted by TS 3/4.7.8.1 and has Standard Review Plan (SRP); for conformance with the technical proposed deletion of these snubbers example, a change resulting from the specifications and regulations are not from the TS. In addition, the licensee appbcation of a small refinement of a significantly changed, and that NRC has has requested a change to TS 3/4.7x1 to previously used calculational model or previously found such methods allow removal of three snubbers (1 design method, acceptable.'
12.1-00-5. and 1-60-5A] without It cppears that the DNBR limit change The proposed changes to the Unit 1 installing away struts.
Emanating from the revised rod bow TS, submitted by application. dated In both cases where the licensee has DNDR penalty is similar to the example December 31.1984 and February 22.1985 proposed removal of snubbers (with and cited in that the change results from the satisfy the criteria of example iii.
without installation of a sway strut) apphcation of a small refinement of a Accordmgly, the Commission proposes stress calculation have been performed previously used calculational model.
to determine that the proposed changes to demonstrate that no appreciable The DNBR limit change to incorporate to the TS required for Unit 1 Cycle 8 increase in seismic induced stress will the penalties previously accounted by operation involve no significant hazards occur in associated piping or equipment.
the BERR1 addressable constant considerations
- A second change associated with Unit represents an end to the use of a LocalPublic Document Room 1 H 3/4.7.8.1 involves the deletion of temporary adjustment procedure and location: Calvert County Library. Prince common. reservoirs notations from those incorporate the penalties which was Frederick Maryland.
found to be within all acceptable criteria Attorney forlicensee: George F.
designated snubbers in Unit i n Table with respect to the apphcable SRP Trowbridge. Esq., Shaw. Pittman. Potts 3.7-4. These sixteen snubbers, tcceptance criteria (i.e.. SRP Section 4.4) and Trowbridge.1800 M Street, NW.,
associated with the Steam Generators.
by the NRC staff.
% ashington. D.C. 20036.
will be modified such that each snubber i
h Therefore, since the application for NRC Branch Chief: James R. Miller.
}I jh's{' tog e wi h a ssociated cmendment mvolves a change similar t Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, fittings, will be designed. manufactured.
be ation exist Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert mounted and maintained to the same zard e RC Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 seismic standards as the snubbers 77 P
fp*pi$ ion fola and 2. Calvert County, Maryland which they serve. Removal of these d an o1 es no
' sign ficant hazards consideration.
Date of amendment request: January Common reservoirs and replacement LocalPublic Document Room 31,1985 with individual units improvea the 1
location:Tomlinson Library. Arkansas Description of amendment mquest; seismic design in that it eliminates the Tech University. Russellville. Arkansas The proposed amendment would change possibility that a single reservoir failure 72801.
the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical would result in eight snubbers bemg Attorney for licensee: Nicholas S.
Specifications (TS) to reflect:(1) inoperable. Since these sixteen snubbers Reynolds. Esq., Bishop. Liberman. Cook, Changes to surveillance requirements are the only snubbers served by Purcell and Reynolds.1200 Seventeenth for safety related hydraulic sway common reservoirs, the surveillance Street. NW., Washington. D C. 20036.
arrestors (snubbers) for Unit 1 only. (2) requirements for these common NRCBranch Chief. James R. Miller.
clarification of the degree of reservoirs specified in TX 4.7.8.1f have Baltimore Gas and Electric Company-independence associates! with the been proposed for deletion. This Dock t No. 50-317. Calvert Cliffs emergency core cooling system (ECCS) propmed TS change was previously Nucitar Power Plant, Unit No.1. Calvert and shutdown cooling system. (3) approved for the Urut 2 TS in License deletion of a reactor vessel Amendment No. 73 which was issued on l
County, Maryland pressurization curve that is no longer April 19.1984.
Date of applications for amendment:
needed for Unit 2 only. (4) a change to The proposed changes in the snubbers December 31,1984 and February 22.
the containment isolation valve addressed above and their associated 3
1985.
identification numbers, and (5)
TS assure an equivalent degree of Description of amendment request:
incorporation of the containment water seismic resistance, therefore, there will The proposed amendment would change level monitor including operability and be no decrease in the seismic design the Unit 1 Technical Specifications (%)
surveillance requirements.
margin. Accordingly, no increase in the to reflect analyses performed in support in reviewing the above proposed probability of occurrence or 3
of C3 cle 8 operation.
changes to the TS. we have determined consequences of seismic related failures j
Bosis forproposedno significant that certain changes in the proposed TS will result. In addition, since only the hazards consideration determination:
are required. These changes were seismic design of the facility is affected.
g 3
On April 6.1983 the NRC published discussed with and agreed to by the no new or different kind of accident is y
guidznce in the Federal Register (48 FR
- licensee, likely to occur. For these reasons the 14870) concerning examples of Basis forproposedno significant Commission proposes to determine that emendments that are not likely to hazards consideration determination:
the proposed changes to TS 3/4.7.8.1 involve significant hazards
- The first TS change topic relates to the involve no significant hazards considerations. One such example (iii) safety related hydraulic sway arrestors considerations.
involvra "For a nuclear power reactor, a (snubbers) addressed in % 3/4.7.8.1.
The licensee has proposed changes to change resulting from a nuclear reactor
" Snubbers". On April 19.1984. the NRC TX 3.5.2. "ECCS Subsystems-T more
,; (
core reloadmg. if no fuel assemblies issued Amendments 92 and 73 for than or equal to 300*F" and W 3 9.8.2.
J
P Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 1985 / Notices 1213'1
" Shutdown Cooling and Coolant Deletion of TS Figure 3.4-2a in no way to be appropriate as addressed in NUREG-0737. " Clarification of DU Circulation." Each of these TS requires changes the appbcable TS. prevents an Action Plan Requirements"..Ha.
that two " independent" subsystems errcr by removing information which is licensee responded, in part, to GL as-37 l
I (loops) of the respectivt systems be no longer applicable, and is thus via their applications for license as proposed administrative in nature.The operable. The licensee @dependeot" a s it Commission has provided guidance amendments dated january 31,1985.%e J
applies to shutdown cooling an8 ECCS concerning the application of standards licensee has proposed that existing 1S deletion of the term "in I'.
in TS 3 5.2 and 3.9 8.2, respectiv'ely.
concerning "no significant hazards Table 3.3-6," Radiation Monitoring The term " independent", when considerations" by providing certain Instrumentation," and TS Table 4.5-3, i
- )
applied to system design, means that examples (48 FR 14870). Purely
" Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation administrative changes to Technical Surveillance Requirements" would be
)'
subsystems which can' function without Specifications are explicitly eqisidered modified to include Limiting Conditions components have been arranged in interdependence. While both the ECCS not likely to involve significant hazards for Operation [LCOs) and Surveillance and shutdown cooling systems contain considerations. Accordingly, the Requirements for the containment water
~
a major components which are arranged Commission proposes to determine that level monitor.
,a The proposed TS would increase the p
independently, both systems share the proposed deletion of TS Figure 3.4-likelihood that the associated equipment 2a involves no significant hazards C
common piping. within the respective will undergo appropriate surveillance considerations.
.I system, and thus neither system is truly The licensee has proposed a change to postaccident assessment.The proposed and be available to assist in "p
" independent." Deleting the word TS Table 3.6-1," Containment Isolation TS represents an additionallimitation or
" independent" from TS 3.5.2 and 3.9.8.2 p/
does not change the requirments of the Valves." This table lists all containment restriction in that,in the event that the TS. Both TS would still require that two isolation valves which are subject to equipment becomes inoperable, the f,
subsystems (loops), at a minimum, be operability ar d surveillance requirements. The licensee has proposed applicable LCO requires remedial action t, :
" independent" as used in TS 3.5.2 and a change in the valve numbering system which was not previously required.
operable for cach system.The term 3.9 8.2 was used descriptively and,in in TS Table 3.6-1 to achieve consistency On April 6.1983, the NRC published 8
with the operational piping and guidance in the Federal Register (48 FR these cases. incorrectly.
Based upon the abos e, we conclude instrument diagrams (P&ID) and 14870) concerning examples of i-that the proposed change would not procedures used to perform the required amendments that are not likely to involve an increase in the probabihty of surveillance on containment isolation involve significant hazards l
consideration. One such example (ii) 1 occurrence or consequences of an valves.
The licensee has been involved in an involves a change "... that constitutes accident previously evaluated. The two effort to revise, upgrade, and an additionallimitation restriction, or
{
proposed changes are simply standardize P& ids. Associated with this control not presently included in the clarifications of Technical Specifications effort they have performed a walkdowntechnical specifiication..." Since the which more closely reflect actual plant f.
design.The proposed TS change would of all affected systems to verify the proposed TS represent additional r
not create the possibility of a new or accuracy of affected drawings.TS Table requirements not previously in the TS.
different kind of accident from any 3.6.1 as presently written lists the valve these proposed changes are consistent i[
accident previously analyzed. No new designations used on contruction P& ids.
with example [ii). Accordingly, the equipment, system abgnments beyond The proposed change would modify this Commission proposes to determine that -
f those previously bounded by current table to reflect the numbers used on these proposed changes to the TS Technical Specifications, or accident operational P& ids. This would result in involve no significant hazards P
enalyses are invoh ed in the proposed less chance of error while performing considerations.
h change. Finally. the proposed change to critical valve line-ups by making Table LocalPublic Document Room Vi the TS would not involve a significant 3.6.1 consistent with operational locotion: Calvert County Library, Prince 1
reduction in the margin of safety. The procedures and P& ids.The requested Frederick, Maryland.
chance is an administrative change and Attorneyforlicensee: George F.
p TS are not being altered except to in nc way changes existing operability Trowbridge. Esq., Shaw. Pittman. Potts provide a clarification of actual plant or surveillance requirements in the TS.
and Trowbridge.1800 M. Street, NW.,
design regarding the ECCS and As previously indicated. adminis',rative Wa shington, D.C. 20038.
shutdown coohng systems. Accordingly, a
the Commission proposes to determine changes to the TS are not likely to NRC Bronch Chief: James R. Miller.
that the proposed changes to TS 3.5.2 involve significant hazards Boston Ed, ison, Company, Docket No. 50-and 3.9.8.2 involve no significant hazard considerations. Accordingly, the pg8""
p 3
H 3
Commission proposes to determine that Plymouth, Massachusetts considerations.
The licensee has proposed deletion of the proposed change to TS Table 3.6.1 Date of amendment request February involves no significant hazards y
TS Figure 3.4-2a. " Reactor Coolant 4,1985.
considerations.
S stem Pressure Temperature The licensee has proposed the Description of amendment request:
3 Limitations for 0 to 2 years of Full Power addition of containment water level The proposed amendment would change b
f Operation." At the present time.TS monitor instrumentation to the the Technical Specifications by 0
Figure 3.4-2b. "Reactnr Coolant System operability and surveillance imposing a new limit of 2 gpm increase, j
to 10 Years" provides the applicable requirements of TS 3/4.3.3.0, average over any 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period, of Pressure Temperature Limitations for 2 3
limitations. Since Unit 2 has been in "Postaccident Instrumentation."
reactor coolant leakage into the primary commercial operation for approximately On November 1,1983, the NRC issued containment from unidentified sources.
a d
seven years and has surpassed the two Generic letter No. 83-37 (GL 83-37) to This limiting condition for operation r
all pressurized water reactor licensees.
(LCO) would apply only when the reactor has been in the RUN mode for
)
" effective full power years" point of This letter contained guidance more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.More specific reactor embrittlement.TS Figure 3.4-Za concerning TS which the NRC believed is no longer needed.
" el 9 12138 Federal Register / Vol. 50 No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 1985 / Notices l
operational requirements are also 1985. Due to the modifications being system, with a small volume available proposed for the regetor coolant leakage made to the suppression pool the from the control rod drive system.
detection system a the reactor maximum permissible interval between
- 4. Surveillance is being performed l
pressure boundary ak fieteption full flow tests will be exceeded before every 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> to verify that the CSS has,
i system to account f r th_e red,undancy of the next test. ne licensee is. therefore.
an operable water source (TS 4.5.3.1.a).
i these systems and the redundancy of requesting a one time extenalon to the Surveillance is performed every 31 components within subsystems.
maximum surveillance interval during days to verify that the CSS is filled with' Bossis forproposedno significant the upcoming refueling outage until water (TS 4.5.3.1.b.1).
hozords considemtion determination within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> after restoration of the Surveillance is performed every 31 The Commission has provided guidance suppression chamber to operable status, days to verify that all valves in the CSS concerning application of the standards but in any case no later than Octaber 30 How path are properly aligned (TS for determining whether license 1985. Based on the present outage 4.5.3.1.b.2).
troendments involve significant hazards schedule. CP&L plans to restore the The proposed change pertaining to considerations by providing certain suppression chamber to operable status specification 4.5.3.1.c.1 represents a a
examples (48 FR 14870). One example of and perform Surveillance Requirement relaxation in the surveillance en amendment that is considered not 4.5.3.1.c.1 by approimately August 29-requirements. However, adequate likely to involve a significant hazards 1985. This will extend the surveillance precautions have been taken to ensure consideration is "(ii) A change that interval from the present maximum of the availability of other means of constitutes an additional limitation, 115 days to approximately 150 days. The cooling for the reactor core. Based on restriction, or control not presently October 30.1985 date aUows for the foregoing discussion. the staff included in the Technical Specifications; contingencies in the completion of concludes that the results of this change.
for example, a more stringent modification to the suppression pool would not (1) involve a significant surveillante requirement." The proposed making the total allowsble surveillance increase in the probability or cmendment is similar to example (ii) in'erval 212 days.
consequences of an accident previously smce it wou.d impose an additional Basis forproposedno significar.f evaluated or (2) create the possibility of limitation and more specific operational hozords consideration determination:
a new or different kind of accident from requirements. Based on this similarity, ne Commission has provided guidance any accident previously evaluated; or (3) the staff has made a proposed in the form of examples of amendments involve a significant reduction in a determination that the application for that are not considered likely to involve margin of safety.nerefore. the amendment m, volves no significant sigruficant hazards considerations (48 Commission proposed to determine that hazards considerations.
FR 14870). The licensee s February 13, these changes do not involve a LocalPublic Document Room 1985 submittalincluded a discussion of significant hazards consideration.
location: Plymouth Public Library, North the proposed action with respect to the Loco /Pubhc Document Room Street. Plymouth. Massachusetts 02360.
no significant hazards consideration.
location: Southport. Brunswick County Attomeyfor licensee %.S. Stowe.
De licensee also provided a discussion Library.109 W.~ Moore Street. Southport, Esq.. Boston Edison Company. 800 regarding the proposed Technical Boylston Street. 36th Floor, Boston, Specification (TS) change.
b' orth Carolina 28461*
Massachusetts 02199.
The licensee has determined and the Attorneyfor h.censee George F.
NRCBranch Chief Domenic B.
NRC staff concurs that extending the Trowbridge. Esquire. Shaw, Pittman.
Vassallo.
surveillance interval, for a full flow test Potts and Trowbridge.1800 M Street.
NW ashi on 6
Carolina Power & Light Comparty, of the Core Spray System (CSS). from 92 Docket No. 50-325. Brunswick Steam days to a total allowable surveillance Electric Plant. Unit 1. Brunswick County, interval of 212 days,does not constitute North Carolina a significant reduction m the verification Carolina Power & Ught Company, of operability or the availability of this Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Date ofopphcotionforamendment:
system for the following reasons:
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Units 1 February 13,1985.
- 1. Normally,in the refueling operation and 2. Brunswick County, North Description of amendment request:
(OPERATIONAL CONDITION 5), the Carolina The proposed Technical Specification CSS is not required to be operable. (and changes request postponement of one thus to have surveillance testing Date of oppkodon for amendment full Dow test of the core spray pumps performed),if all of the following July 29.1982 as supplemented August 30, until the primary containment conditions are met:(1) The reactor 1984 and Jnnuary 18.1985.
suppressico chamber is restored to its vessel head is removed. (2) the refueling Description of amendment request operational condition.
cavity is flooded, and (3) the spent fuel ne August 30.1984 and January 18.
The licensee is presently planning to gates are removed. The CSS will be 1985 submittals revise the July 29.1982 shutdown the Brunswick Steam Electric available for operation. if needed, during submittal which was previously published in the Federal Register on Plant. Unit 1 on or before March 31,1985 the relatively short interval when for a 31 week outage (plus six weeks for operability is required due to plant August 23,1983 (48 FR 38391). This contingencies) to refuel, perform conditions (i.e., draining the refueling amendment would modify the technical -
maintenance work and modify the Mark cavity until the suppression chamber is specifications to correctly identify I torus Jn conjunction with the Mark I refilled).
certain relays associated with the plant tonis modifications, the suppression 2.The CSS consists of two ernergency power supplies and provide chamber will be drained and, therefore, independent subsystems. each with correct est i~'r.1 wlss foi nio.%
it will not be possible to perform the-100% cap city, thus providing redundant these relays.
full-flow surveillance test of the Core safety system subsystem.
Following investigation of a reactor Spray System (CSS) wherein water is
- 3. Redundant systems that will be scram, the licensee determined recirculated into the suppression pool, available to supply core reDood Degraded Voltage Surveillance Tests on This requirement willlast be capability include the condensate Unit 1 were not being parformed. The performed on approximately Aprill, system and the service water injection licensee's review of a previous
1<ll Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 1985 / Notices T2139
[
I modificatien revealed that incorrect Specifications; for example, a more compensate for an inoperOle door j
relays were referenced in the plant stringent surveillance requirement."
interlock.
1 modification and therefore. the incorrect Example (i) encompasses the changes The current Technical Specification
[
.i 5
set point values were lhcorporated in requested to correct the errors in requires that the operation of the air 5 4 i
the technical specific 4 ions. Table 3.3.3-identifying certain relays in the lock door interlock be verified every six i
It
- 2. Item 5.a. describes Balance-qf. Plant emergency power supplies. Example (ii) months.Ris verification presents the l
IBOP) busses IC, ID. 2C, and 2D for applies to the added requirements for following problems:
i Device 27. The correct relay should have these relays including proper set points, (1) The interlock surveillance is
.g been Emergency Busses E.1, E-2, E-3.
surveillance intervals and operability performed independently of the airlock
~
~.I and E-4. Device 27/59E. The proposed conditions. Therefore, since the operability requirements.
changes to the technical specifications application for amendment involves (2) ne interlock surveillance cannot would correct this error and provide proposed changes that are similar to be performed when the unit is at power correct set point values for actuating the examples for which no significant with the drywellinerted, as the drywell relays.
hazards considerations exists, the is inaccessible.
During the staff review of the Commission proposes to determine that (3) A low power drywell entry just to
{
preposed Technical Specifications the application for amendment involves perform the interlock surveillance would certein clarifications were requested no significant hazards consideration.
present an unnecessry safety hazard from the licensee These clarifications Loco /Public Document Room and increase radiation exposure to were provided in letters dated Aug :st location: Southport, Brunswick County, personnel performing the test.
f 30,1984 and January 18.1985.
1.ibrary,109 W. Moore Street, Southport, The proposed revision requiring The August 30.1984 letter provided a North Carolina 28461.
verification after each entry (except revised voltage drop study. The results Attorneyforlicensee: George F, during periods of multiple entries where indicate that the distribution system Trowbridge, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman',
it is tested at least every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />) will
- ~
rema.ns above the aforementioned Potts and Trowbridge,1800 M Street present the following resolutions:
j relays setpoint for the minimum grid NW., Washington. D.C. 20036.
(1) The interlock surveillance will be voltage and the maximu n plant load NRC Bronch Chief: Domenic B.
added to the air lock surveillance condition. Further,it demonstrates that Vassallo.
requirements.Thus, the two the safety related loads will accelerate Carolina Power a IJght Company, surveillances will be performed
]
to full speed in less than the time delay Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, simultaneously, ensunng that the
'P' i
h' Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 interlock is operable whenever the al' f
the ge for the SE n s1 r
and 2 Brunswick County, North lock is required to be operable.
and 2 distribution system will remain Carolina (2) The surveillances will be above the relay trip curve for the l
minimum grid voltage.
Date of applicationfor amendment; performed with the unit in cold The letter dated January 18,1985 October 24,1984, as supplemented shutdown and prior to entering 1
explained that the once per shift February 27,1985.
operational conditions 1,2, or 3. The j
channel check performed on these Description of amendment reguest above surveillance requirement is in the I
relays consists of a check for relay The proposed amendments would Brunswick pre startup checklist and in j
targets which indicate if the relay is change the Limiting Condition for the drywell closure checklist. After the tripped or not and verification that the Operation (LCO), the Surveillance surveillance requirement is i
l installed voltmeters on the 415 kV bus Requirements and the associated bases satisfactorily completed, access to the
'l read greater than 3800 solts. This for Specification 3/4.6.1.3, Pnmary drywellis secured.This will ensure air 1
voltage information is also available Containment Air Locks, to specifically lock and interlock operability in (redundant) in the control room.
address the air lock door interlocks.
operational conditions 1,2. or 3 and Furthermore, the relays are arranged in Additionally, the Technical until another drywell entry is made.
t
.a two.out.of.three logic for reliable Specifications will be reformatted to Whenever the drywellis ered, the 1
ectuation to avoid spurious trips.
more closely follow the guidance of the surveillance requirement eat be The two supplemental letters NUREG-0123. Standard Technical repeated prior to drywell cicise.
provided additionalinformation that Specifications.
(3) With the surveillance ben further substantiated the prnposed The current Specification does not performed simultaneously in cold
]
Technical Specifications change.
specifically address an inoperable door shutdown, an additional drywell entry is h
Basis forproposedno significant interlock in the LCO. As such. It could not necessary. This will therefore, hozords considcration determination:
be interpreted that an inoperable door reduce personnel exposure to radiation i
The Commission has provided guidance interlock falls outside the " degraded and prevent an additional safety hazard.
concerning the application of the mode" permitted by Paragraph 3.6.1.3 (a)
(4) The increased surveillance on the standards for determining whether a and (b). Were that to be the interlock will result in an increased level significant hazards consideration exists interpretation, this interlock would fall of confidence in the interlock's by providing certain examples (48 FR under paragraph 3.6.1.3(c) which directs operability.
14870). The examples involving no the plant to be in hot shutdown within Additionally, the Specification is 1
significant hazards consideration the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in cold shutdown being reformatted to be consistent with include "(il a purely administrative within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. CP&L has NUREG-0123, the Standard Technical change to Technical Specifications: for concluded that this was not the intent of Specifications for General Electric example, a change to achieve the Specification. since an inoperative Boiling Water Reactors.
consistency throughout the Technical door lock is clearly of a similar nature Basis forproposedno significant s
as the " degraded mode" permitted by hozords consideration determination:
I Specifications,correctionof anerror,or a change in nomenclature; and. (ii) a paragraphs 3.6.1.3 (a) and (b).
'Ihe Commission has provided guidance change that constitutes an additional The amendments, therefore, propose concerning the application of the limitation. restriction. or control not that the action described for en standards for determining whether a presently included in the Technical inoperable air lock door is sufficient to significant hazards consideration exists
Gi jkgytL
. ~ ~ ~
12140 Fed;ral Register / Vd. 50. NO. 59 / W;dnesday. March 27. liles / Notices by providing cetain examples (48 FR dated December 19.1983. In addition. -
considstation include:(I) A clsange 14870). The examples of actions recent organir.ational changes at which is purely administrative in nature.
involving no significant hazards Brunswick and various administrative for example, a correction of an arror, or consideration include:(i) A purely changes are reflected in the proposed TS a change in nomenclature; and (vil) a administrative change to the Specifica tions; for)xample. a. Technical pages.
change to make a license conform to schieve consisterft y through change to Section 50L72 of Title to of the Code of changea la the regulations, where the out the Federal Regulations has been revised license change results la very adaae Technical Specificatioris, ctirrection of and became effective January 1.1964. A changes to facility operations clearly lo an error, or a change in nomenclature:
.new i 50.73 of Title to of the Code of the and (ii) a change that constitutes an Federal Regulations has been added and keeping with the regulations.
additional limitation, restriction or also became effective January 1.1964-The staff has reviewed the proposed "
control not presently included in the Section 50.72 revises the immediate amendment and finds that the revisiono Technical Specifica tions.
notification requirements for operating relattng to the new reporting The proposed change pertaining to the nuclear power reactors. He new I 50.73 requirements fall under the criteria of reformatting of the Specification is provides for a revised Licensee Event example (vii) since they are clarifying purely an administrative change as in Report System.
requirements made by a change in the example (i). The proposed revision Paragraph (g) of I 50.73 specifically regulations and made at the request of requiring verification after air lock entry states that:"the requirements contained the Commission.ne typographical (except during periods of multiple in this section replace all existing clarification and repagination changes entries where it will be tested at least requirements for licensees to report are found to be similar to the every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />) constitutes additional
' Reportable Occurrences' as defined in administrative changes in the cited controls not presently included in the individual plant Technical example and therefore fall under Technical Specifications and is.
Specifications." ne definition example (1). De organizational changes therefore, encompassed by example (ii).
"Reportab!e Occurrence" will be do not involve (1) a significant increase In addition. the change regarding the replaced by a new term. " Reportable in the probab9ity or consequences of an inoperable door interlock is also an Event." nese changes wiu be made in acc dent previously evaluated. (2) the edditional control not presently the current version of Standard possibility of a new or different kind of included and. therefore. is encompassed Technical Specifications (STS) for all accident from any accident previously by example (ii). Thus, the proposed nuclear power reactors and in the evaluated. nor (3) a significant reduction changes discussed in this request are Technical Specifications for plants not in a margin of safety. Op this basis, the either admimstrative changes or yet licensed.
Commission proposes to determine that constitute additional controls not The changes relating to the revised these proposed amendments do not presently included in the Specification reporting requirements are in involve a significant hazards and, therefore. conform to examples for accordance with 10 CFR 50.72 and to consideration which no significant hazards CFR 50.73 and with the guidance Localpublic DocumentRoom considerations exist.
provided by the Commission in Genen.
locotion; Southport. Brunswick County Therefore. aince the application for Letter BM3 and are made at the L brary.10e W. Moore Street. Sotrthport.
c emendment involves proposed changes Commission a request. In addition, North Carolina 28461.
that are similar to examples for which no significant hazards considerations organizational changes are pro sed g
jj
,,. g p,
which mcluded:(1) Inclusion Trowbridge Esquire. Shaw. Pittman.
exist, the Commission proposes to Brunswick personnel title and Potis and Trowbridge.1800 M Street.-
determine that the proposed amendment orgaruzational changes: (2) correction of NW Washi"8 ton, D.C. 20036.
involves no significant hazards considerations.
typographical errors: (3) clarification of NRCBronch Chief Domenic B LocoIPublic Document Room terms and mathematical symbols; and VassaHo.
(4) repagination. De organizational locotion: Southport. Brunswick County changes consist of: deletion of the office Commonwealth Edison Company.
Library 109 W. Moore Street. Southport. of Manager--Plant Operations; addition Docket Nos. 50-373 a 50-374. La Salle
- North Carolma 28461.
of the Manager-Outages and his staff.
County Station, Units l a 2, La Salle Attorney forlicensee: George F.
Trowbridge. Esquire. Shaw Pittman, a title change from Director-Planning County. Illinois 1
and Scheduling to Manager-Site Dateofamendmentrequest January Potts and Trowbridge.1800 M Street.
Planning and Contral, a title change 15.1985.
NW.. Washington. D C. 20036.
from Manager--Operations QAlQC to Description of amendment request:
NRCBranch Chief; Domenic B.
Manager-QA/QC Brunswick and De pmposed amendments to Operatm, g Vassalo.
Robinson: a title change from Principal License NPF-11 and Operating License Ccrolina Power & Light Company, QA Specialist Performance Evaluation NpF-18 would revise the la Salle. Units Unit to Manager-QA Services; and a 1 and 2 Technical Specification Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324' Units 1 shift of responsibility for Fire Brigade 4.e.5.3.d.3 to change the method for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant.
cnd 2. Brunswick County. North training from the Manager-Operations calculating the kilowatt capacity of Cawlina to the Director-Training.
Standby Gas Treatment Heaters when Bosisforproposedno significont they are tested and to reflect the 3 kW Date of application for amendment; hazards consideration determinotion:
highet capacity of newly installed October 29,1984. as supplemented February 4.1985
%e Commission has provided guidance heaters. The changes are required concerning the application of its because current Technical Specification.
Descnption ofornendment request:
The prcposed amendments would standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92 for which does not account for the bus no significant hazards consideration by voltage in the kilowatt, capacity change the Technical Specifica tions (TS) providing certain examples pubbshed in calculation is ambiguous, and because to incorporate the new reporting the Federal Register on April S.1983 (48 new heaters bave been Installed.
requirements as defined by the.
FR 14870). Examples of an amend a ent The duct heaters for the Standby Gas Commission in Generic latter No. 83-43 likely to involve no significant hazards Treatment System are designed to e
.~
Federal Register / Vol. So, No. Se / Wednesday, March 27,19e5 / Notices 12141 y
reduce the relative humidity of the Therefore, since the application for (10 CFR 50.92(c. A proposed airflow to a maximum of 70% relative amendments involve proposed changea amendment to an operating Mcense for a humidity at the wor t inlet conditions. that are similar to en example for which facility involves no sigrdficant hazards The heaters origina y installed to no significant hazards consideration consideration if operation of the faciFrty provide this functi had a nominal exists, the staff has made a proposed in accordance wfth the proposed amendment would not-(1)lnvolve a rating of 20 kW (at 480 volts); The determination that the apphcation for purpose of Technical SpeciScation amendments involvea no significant significant increase in the probebihty or 4.6.5.3 d.3 suneillance requirement is to hazards consideration. consequences of an acudent previonsfy ensure that the heaters perform their LocalPublic Documerit Room evaluated: (2) create the possibility of a. function without major degradation. The locotion: Public Library of Illinois Valley new or different kind of accident from ) present method of testing the Community College, Rural Route No.1, any accident previously evaluated; or (3) i perfenance of the heaters is based on a Ogicaby Illinois 61348. involve a significant reduction in a L 2 kW acceptance range for the A ttorney for licensee: 1 sham, Uncola margin of safety. I-previous 20 kW heaters without and Burke, Suite 840,1120 fhnacticut The license has deiermined and the reference to the bus voltage during Avenue. NW., Washington. D.C. 30mo. NRC staff agrees that the proposed testing. NRCBmnch Chief: A. Schwencer. amendments will not-Recently. the heaters were replaced Commonweahh Wna thpany. (1)Invo!ve a significarrt increase in with o.es having a slightly higher heat Docket Nos. 50-373 & 50-374,la Sella the probability or consequences of an F rating of 23 LW (at 480 bus voltage). County Station Units 1 & 2, La Saue accident prev:ously evaluated because AdditionaUy, due to variations in actual County, Illinois this change only removes the channel check nquin ments. Nnnel funceronal bus voltage at the time of test. the Date of amendment request: February testing and calibrations are still allowable kW for each heater should be 21 9 Periodically required to ensure system compared to the amount of voltage es iption of amendment request: C "'T E8 I* suppbed, based on the textbook The proposed amendments to Operating 8u*N "n'ec'W h h Mon. criteria is nd a relationship W = V4R, where W is the Ucense NPF-11 and Operating Ucense g resulting electncal beat developed by NPF-18 would revise the La Saue Units (2) Create the possibility of a new or
- q the heater, V is the applied voltage and different kind of accident from any R is the resistance of the heater for more.1 and 2 Technical Specifications in accident pnviusly onhrated becem
( Tables 4.3.1.1-1,4 3.2.1-1,4.3 3.1-1 and failure of these instruments rs evalasb d accurate calculation dunng tests. The 4.15.1-1 to delete the channel check and no new accident is postulated from proposed amendment would change the requirements fmm certain instruments. q F performance criteria of the heaters to These instruments contain Barton removing the channel check account for thetr capacity based on test differentialindicating switches to requirement at a nominal 23 kW capacity. The diesel measure vessellevel and various system (3) Involve a significant reduction'in g generator loading which powers the flows. Dese switches are installed in the margin of safety because the heaters will not be significantly affected the Reactor Protection Systems, Primary availability of safety related systems is l by the nominal 3 kW per beater Containment Isolation Systems, not significantly affected. ,s ( mcrease, and the small increase in F.mergency Core Cooling Systems, and Accordingly, the Commission rj heater downstream temperature due to Reactor Core Isolation Coohng Proposes to determine that the proposed f the increa sed kilowatt will not affect the Actuation Systems. changes to the Technical Specifications thermal safety settmg of 220 *F in the nese Barton differential pressure involve no significant hazards considerations. t heaters.The change in the method of indicating switches have not met the - localPublic DocumentRoom I calculating the beeter capacity will qualification requirements of10 CFR provide more accurate test inbrmation 50 49 and are bems replaced by location: Public Ubrary of Illinois Valley l on the heaters function. qualified differential pressure switches Community CoIIcge, Rural Route No.1, Basis forproposedno significant manufactured by Static-O-Ring, Inc. Ogelsby, Illinois e1348. I hazards consideration determination: These new switches are blind Attomeyforlicensee:Isham, Uncoln The Commission has provided guidance differential switches and do not have and Burke, Suite 640,1120 Connecticut, p concerning the application of standards local indication. During the preparation Avenue. NW., Washington, D.C. 20036. ( for a no significant hazards of the I.a Salle Units 1 & 2 Technical NRC Branch Chief A. Schwencer. consideration determination by Specifications. required channel checks a pa providing cer1ain examples (48 FR were added where indication was D e ac ear 148"9) One of the examples (vi) of available for performing these checks. Powcr Station, Unit 2 Rock taland g actions mvolvm, g no sigruficant hazards Since these pressure switches are no" ""'I' ru ~ a I considerations is a change which ettbsr being upg-eded to meet 10 CFR 5449, f may result in some increase to the these channel checks are not possible Date of amendment request: January y probabibty or consequences of a and must be deleted from the Technical 3,1985. previously analyzed accident or aisy Specifications. It should be noted. Description of amendment request-L reduce in some way a safety margin, but though, while these specific inetrument ne proposed amenefment w ould change,, ) [ where the results of the change are channels are deleted, in all cases except the Technical Specifications for the l clearly within all acceptable cz1teria. one, other instnnnentation from the reactor scram system.The change would Dese proposed amendments simply 64n.e reactor vessel reference and provide new hmiting conditions for lg clarify the Tech Specs to indicate that variable legs are still required to have operation and surveillance requirements f allow able heater capacity is voltage channel checks. for a newly modified scram system I4 dependent and to reflect the bgher Basis forproposedno signiBeant having improved reliability.ne capacity of new heaters, and do not hazards consideration determinothn: modifications were implemented per an f change the intent of the Technical The Commission has prtmded NRC Order issued on Jene 24,1983.He Specifications nor permit testmg or standards for determining whether a proposed changes to the Technical i operation oatside acceptable criteria. significant hazards consideration exists Specifications are based upon the 1 l
12142 Faderal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednesday. March 27, 1985 / Notices' l licensee's final design ofits scram The staff has reviewed the licensee's LocalPublic Document Room system and its review of model significant hazards consideration location: Zion-Benton Library District.' technical specifications provided as determination and, based on this 2000 Fmmaus Avenue. Zion. Elinois guidance by the NRC.htaff. review the staff has made a proposed 80099. Basis forpmposedno signifkant determination that the application for A ttorney to licensee: P. Steptoe. Eng hazards considemtion deter;riination: amendment involves no significant Isham, Lincoln and Beale. Counselors at The licensee submittal ofJanuary 3. hazards considerations. Law.Three First National Plaza.51st - 1985. contained an evaluation of the Loca/Public Document Room Floor. Chicago. Ulinois 60602. proposed action, and a proposed no location: Moline Public Library. 504-NRCBranch Chief Steven A.Varga. significant hazards consideration 17th Street Moline. Illinois 61285. Commonwealth Edison Company, determination, based on the following Attor.reyfor licensee: Mr. Robert G. Docht Nos. 50-295 and M Zion considerations. Fitzgibbons. Jr.. Isham. Lincoln. & Beale. Nuclear Power Station. Units Nos.1 and Subsequent to a failure of 76 of185 Three First National Plaza. Suite 5200. 2.Benton County Elinois control rods to fully insert at Browns Chicago. Illinois 60602. Ferry Unit 3 in tesponse to a manual NRCBmnch Chief Domenic B. Date of applicationforamendments: scram signal, the Commission had Vassallo. February 5.1985. embarked on an indepth review of the Description of amendments request-BWR control rod drive system which Commonwealth Edison Company, he amendments would revise the Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304. Zion identified a number of design issues actions required in the event of an Nuclear Power Station. requiring both short and long term
- 2. Benton County. Uliam, Unit Nos.1 and inoperable rod due to a rod urgent s
corrective measures. On October 1.1980 failure condition. %e amendments letters w ere sent to all BWR licensees Date of application for amendments would reduce challenges to plant safety requesting commitments to reevaluate October 19,1984 augmented byletters systems as requested in Inspection the present scram system and modifying dated December 20.1984 and February Report Nos. 50-295/81-09 and 50-304/ it as necessary to meet both the design 14.1985. 81-05. and performance criteria as developed Description of amendments request: Basis forpwposedno significant by the BWR Owners Subgroup. The amendment would change (a) the hazards consideration determination: Accordingly, a confirmatory order was hot channel factor limits and (b) limiting De existing Technical Specifications written June 24.1983 for Quad Cities co:.ditions for operation of the require if more than one control rod is Unit 2 regardmg a schedule for accumulator system. Both changes result inoperable, except due to a rod urgent implementation of the long term from the revised Emergency Core failure, the reactor must be shutdown corrective actions. That Confirmatory Cooling System (ECCS) analysis, within four hours. For inoperability due Order also provided model technical Basis forproposedno significant to ud cpt failure,if the affected sptcification changes. Based on hazards consideration determination assemblies cannot be returned to Commonwealth Edison's final design The revised ECCS analysis resulted in service within two hours. the reactor and upon a review of the model new values for peak cladding shall be shutdown within 4 hours. The technical specifications. Commonwealth terrperature, total core hydrogen amendment being proposed would Edison is proposing a number of generation and local cladding oxidation. provide that. for inoperability caused by n changes to Appendix A of the Technical All new values are well within the a rod u* gent failure condition. if the Specification for Quad Cities Unit 2 in respective limits set forth in 10 CFR affected assemblies cannot be retumed accordance with the formentioned 50.46. The new analysis demonstrates to service within twenty-four hours the Confirmatory Order. increased safety margins using reactor shall then be shutdown within The Commission has provided previously approved analysis'models the next four hours. guidance conceming the apphcation of and methods which are in compliance A rod urgent failure indicates standards for determining whether a with 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K. In equipment failure in the rod control significant hazards consideration exists addition the results also meet the system power or logic cabinets. The rod . by providing specific examples.The criteria set forth in Section 15.6.5. Loss urgent failure condition will inhibit the examples of actions involving no of Coolant Accident of the Standard rod control system's ability to move significant hazards consideration Review Plan.ne Commission has rods, but will not affect the ability of the include: (ii) Changes that constitute an provided guidance concerning the control rods to be tripped. additional limitation or restriction or application of these standards by The Commission's example of actions control not presently within the providing certain examples (48 FR involving no significant hazards tzchnical specifications e g. a more 14870).The examples of actions considerations (48 FR 14870) include: stringent survei!!ance requirement. involving no significant hazards include "(vi) A change which may either result The changes proposed in this actions which may reduce in some way in some increase to the probability or . application for amendment are a safety margin, but where the results of consequences of a previously analyzed encompassed by this example because the change are clearly within all accident or may reduce in some way a of the additionallimitations and acceptable criteris with respect to the safety margin but when the results of restrictions that will be added by this system or component specified in the the change are clearly within all Technical Epecification amendment. Standard Review Plan: For example, a acceptable criteria with respect to the Therefore, since the application for change resulting from the application of system or component...".The above amendment involves a proposed change a small refinement of a previously used example fits the proposed change.The that is similar to an example for which calculational model or design method. staff, therefore. proposes to conclude no significant hazards consideration The changes requested fallin this that the proposed changes to the exists. Cr mmonwealth Edison has made category. On the above basis, the staff Technical Specifications involve no a proposed determination that the proposes to conclude that the significant hazards consideration. cpplication involves no significant amendments involve a no significant LocalPublic Document Room hzzards consideration. hazards consideration. location: Zion.Benton Library District. 9
- t. 7 z
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednesday March 27, 1985 / Notices 12143 2000 Emmaus Avenue, Zion, Illinois mililigrams each of any source or special different kind of accident from an nuclear material for sample analysis or accident previously evaluated, and (3) 60099. Attorney to licensee: P. Steptoe, Esq., instrumcnt calibration, with the does not involve a significant reduction Isham.1.incoln and'Beale, Counselors at exception of up to curies of cesium-137 in a nargin of safety. Law, Three First Npional Pla.za,51st which may be used in the form of a Locc/Public Document Room i Floor. Chicago, Illinois 60604 sealed source for instrument calibration, location: La Crosse Public IJbrary,800 ' NRCBmnch Chief: Steven A. Varga. On October 18,1984, Dairyland Power Main Street, La Crosse, Wisconsin C Cooperative (DPC) proposed a change to H601. l Consumers Power Company, Docket No. ec tio s of opera Attorneyforlicensee: 0.S. Heistand, j acj 50-255, Palisades Plant, Van Buren ,} wg Jr., Esquire, Morgan, Lewis & Bocklus. e 9,,, County, Michigan ' g 1800 M Street, NW., Wa shington, D.C. Date of amendment request cesiu n 137 in ef m of a!ed sources 2003& November 19.1984. for instrument calibration. NRCBmach Chief: John A.Zwolinski, n Description of amendment request: Subsequently, on January 10,1985 DPC The proposed amendment would:(1) revised the earlier submittal and Branch Chief. g Incorporate additional technical requested that atl quantity limitations on Georgia Power Company.Oglathort a specifications for the new Control Room possession of by product or special Power Corporation, Municipal Elec' ic Emergency Air Cleanup Systems and (2) nuclear material for sample analysis or Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, r t, add fire detectors sprinklers, and a hose instrument calibration be removed from Georgia Dockets Nos. 50-321 and 50-station to the Tables of required fire the facility opearting license. These 366 Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant. Unita protection equipment that have been changes would make the La Crosse NoA.1 and 2. Appling County, Georgia added to the facility. license conditions for by-product h Basis forproposedno significant materials consistent with those in Date of amendment request: October hazards consideratioan determination: licenses currently being isued by the 1,1984. (j The Commission has provided guidance NRC to new plants which allow the Description of amendment request concerning the application of the possessin of these materials "in amounts ne amendments would modify the standards in 10 CFR 50 92 by providm, g as required." Environmental Technical Specifications p certam examples (48 FR 14870. April 6, Basis forpmposedno significan! [ Appendix B) to delete the requirement y 1983). One of the examples (ii) of actions hazards considemtion determinationr for serial photography which has been not hkely to mvolve a significant The licensee's requests to eliminate employed to determine the effects of hazards consideration relates to a limitations on the amount of certam cooling tower drift on the surrounding g change that constitutes an additional redionuclides at La Crosse would allow ) limitation. restriction, or control not the possession and use of a more
- "'I'. "forpmposedno significant
'"I' Basis y presently included in the technical accurate device for calibration of hazards considemtion determination: specifications The proposed changes (1) various radiation monitoring The Commission has provided guidance and (2) above add such limitations and instruments throughout the plant.The .L controls for equipment present!y not proposed change would make the La concerning the application of the L included in the technical specifications. Crosse license consistent with the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing Therefore, because this amendment conditions now incorporated in certain examples (48 FR 14870). One of i {j request involves only changes of the operating licenses issued by the NRC to the examples of actions involving no - type specified in example [ii) of the new plants.The intent of the proposed significant hazards consideration is i Commission's guidance. the staff change is to allow the licensee to have example (iv), a relief granted upon proposes to determine ihat the proposed greater flexibility in selection of demonstration of acceptable operation changes would not involve a significant radioactive sources for calibrating from an operating restriction that was hazards consideration. radiation detection equipment. Failure imposed because acceptable operation LocalPublic Document Room of radioactive sourc1s has extremely was not yet demonstrated.This assumes y location: Kalamazoo Public Library. 315 low consequences for members of the that the operating restriction and the South Rose Street. Kalamazoo. Michigan general public and thus is not criteria to be applied to a request for considered in licensing evaluations of relief have been established in a prior ?
- 49007, c'
Anomeyforlicensee:Judd L Bacon, nuclear plants. Although it would allow review and that it is justified in a l' Esquire. Consumers Power Company, an increase in the amount of radioactive satisfactory way that the criteria have p 212 West Michigan Avenue. jackson, material used at La Crosse, the proposed been met. Michigan 49201. change is not expected to significantly ne proposed amendments constitute pR NRCBecnch Chiefelohn A.Zwolinski. increase the amount used at the site for a change to grant relief upon the identified purpo,ses. De licensee a demonstration of acceptable operation. Dair> land Pow er Cooperative. Docket techrucal specifications for handling and The serial photography program No. 50-809. La Crosse Boiling Water I'I' I requirement was instituted due to the [ Reactor, Vernon County, Wisconsin C[t d Tec al unknown effect of the deposition of e Date of amendment request October Specifications which are implemented at cooling tower drift upon the ~~ 18,1984, as revised January 10,1985. new plants and are consistent with environment prior to plant operation. -, Description of amendment requeste current licensing criteria. Herefore. The program has been successfully The existing Provisional Operating based upon all of the above. the staff l License (DpR-45) for the La Crosse concludes that the proposed change completed with no adverse l Boiling Water Reactor has license does not involve a significant hazards environmental impact. Therefore, this l conditions which prohibit the license consideration determination since it:(1) change is similar to example (iv). On e this basis, the Commission proposes to i from possession or use of more than 100 Does not involve a significant increase l millicuries each of any by. product in the probability or consequences of a determine that the amendment request material for sample analysis or previously evaluated accident. (2) does involves no significant hazards f instrument calibration, or 100 not create the possibility of a new or considerations. r O-
W .Tv / ' U c4 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 59 / Wednesday. March 27.1985/ Notices r. s t. co/Public Document Room out of the last 100 valid testa for the in accordance with the proposed "I jon: Appling County Public Library, specific diesel being tested. amendment would not:(1) Involve a Sty Hall Drive. Baxley. Georgia.
- 3. Revise the 18-month cycle. 24-hour ' significant increase in the probability or f'
! f orneyforlicensee: G.F. die'sel test requirement to require that consequences of an accident previously [ ,g q. bridge. Shaw Pi tman. Potts and t}fe overload test be performed during evaluated; or (2) create tfie possibility of bridge.1800 M S{treet. NW., p nington, D.C. 20036. - hours of the test. a new or different kind of accident from d ~-4 h l the last two rather than the first two "i any accident previously evaluated; or (3) - I CBronch Chief John F. S'tolz.
- 4. Extend the test interval for verifying involve a significant reduction in a
-} ja Pawzr Company. Oglethorpe perability of diesel air start receivers margin of safety. r Corporzti:n. Municipal Electric fr m 18 monb to 5 ypars. The Commission's staff. In Generic QJ trity cf Georgia. City of Dalton
- 5. Replace the requirements to report Letter (GL) 84-15 (" Proposed Staff c
- !a Dockits Nos. 50-321 and 55-failures f r each diesel test and to hin I. Hrich Nuclear Plant. Unitsprovide a sapplemental report if more Action to improve and Maintain Diesel Icnd 2. Appling County Georgia than seven failures occurred during the Generator Reliability"-July 2.1984).
e last 100 tests with an annual report like indicated that requirements for testing g e of amendment request; nber 7,1984 as corrected the one discussed above for Hatch Unit -diesel generators while emergency core 1 (Item 7). cooling equipment is inoperable results. aber 20.1985. The amendments would modify the in excessive testing and increased cription of amendment request: Technical Specifications for both Hatch degradation of diesel engines.The staff g sendments would modify the Units 1 and 2 to: recommended, therefore, that these I Unit 1 Tschm. cal Specifications
- 1. Add a once a year 7-day testing requirements be deleted from the siete the requirement for inoperability exception for each Technical Specifica tions. Item 11isted individual daesel and two 18-day above as a change to Hatch Unit 1 gtretion diesel generator inoperebihty exceptions for all the Technical Specifications is one such niity when core spray stystems.
diesels m a umt to the 3-day inoperable item as addressed in GL 64-15. The essure cora injection systems limit for an inidividual diesel. licensee stated in its November 7.1984, . plant service water systems or '
- 2. Increase the time allowed for a letter that the above proposed change actor heat removal (RHR) systems diesel to accept fullload during a test does not involve a significant increase iperable.
from 2 minutes to 5 mm, utes. in the probability or consequences of an id a requirement to verify offsite
- 3. Increase the time allowed to verify accident previously evaluated because it sveilsbility and correct breaker that a diesel is operable after declaring Wh a
dmag ents. an offsite power source component of and abusive diesel 8enerator testi"8 place the monthly diesel another diesel to be inoperable from which can contribute to accelerated i tot test with a test schedule "immediately" to 24 hours. except that diesel generator wear, which ment bued on the number of incease ofloss of an offsite power o neequently degrades dieselgenerator a during the previous 100 vahd source component, the diesel will not reliability and availabihty. The licensee have to be tested ifit has been stated that this change will not create 1d a requirement that during the successfully tested within the previous 7 the possibility of a new or ddferent kind at thi di:sel accelerates to days. of accident from any accident previously muous speed within 12 seconds Basisforproposedno significant evaluated because no physical ' N reases the minimum load for
- hozords consideration determination:
modificatnons are required to be made to ifrating operabihty. The Commission has provided guidance the plant and performance of onsite ninete the requirement for for the application of the criteria in 10 emergency power systems as described taleperabihty testing of the CFR 50,92 by providing examples of in the Final Safety Analysis Report very 24 hours following the amendments that are considered not (FSAR) will remain unchanged. The esting. likely to inivolve a significant hazards licensee also stated that this change
- rease the time allowed to consideration (48 FR 14870). One such does not involve a significant reduction an inoptrable diesel to operable example is (ii), a change that constitutes in a margin of safety because with the om 7 dzys to 3 days.
i a requirement for an annual an additional limitatin, restriction or proposed change failures of the core control not presently included in the spray. LPCI or RHR service water n the number of tests and Technical Specifications. system components will not adversely t i for each diesel. Items 2. 3. 4. 6 and 7 listed above as affect the reliability and performance of mendments would modify the changes to the Hatch Unit 1 Technical the diesel generators. nit 2 Tschnical Specifications Specifications are similar to this The Commission's staff agrees with g example. the licensee's evaluation in this regard, esse the time allowed to restore Another such example (i) of action not and accordingly, the staff proposes to to inoperable diesel generators likely to involve signihcant hazards find that this change involves no etable status from 2 hours to 24 consideration is a purely administrative significant hazards considerations. ~ change to the Technical Specifications. Item 511sted above as a change to Isce the requirements for testing item S listed above as a change to theHatch Unit 1 Technical Specifications. 6 t 3. 7.14. cr 31 day intervals Hatch Unit 2 Technical Specifications is items 1 through 4 above for Hatch Unit 2 the t:tal number of failures out similar to this example. Technical Specifications, and Items 1 it 100 valid tests of all diesels at The Commission has also provided through 3 above for both Hatch Units 1 th only two of these test standards for determining whether a and 2 Technical Specifications are . 7 cnd 14 daya. based on the significant hazards consideration exists changes directed at enhancing the af failures out of the last 100 (10 CFR 50.92(c)]. A proposed reliability of the diesel generators. GL Is cf all diesels at a unit with amendment to an operating license for a 64-15 expressed the staff's position that cf thes2 (Ist intervals. 7 and 14 facility involves no significant hazards frequency of fast start tests from ied on the number of failures consideration if operation of the facihty ambient conditions of diesel generators
2 12146 Fedir:1 Register / V:1. 50. Nr. Se / Wednesday, March 27, toes / Notices fzlls within example (vii). Because these Iowa Electric Ught and Power Company, encompassed by the above Nted ' n' amendments fall within examples of Docket No. 50-331. Duana Arnold ' examples. r.ctions not likely to involve significant Energy Center, unn County, Iowa Therefore, atace the applicatian der hazzrds considerations, the staff Date of amendment requese amendment involvea proposed changea proposes to determine that the November 9,1964, as revised January 18. similar to examplea for which no requested action involyes no significant 1985. significant hazards consideration exista. hazards consideratiorg Description of amendment equest the staff has rnade a proposed Loca/ Public Document Room The proposed amendment would change determination that the application ~ location: Ocean County Library 101 the Duane Arnold Energy Center involves no significant hazards Washington Street, Toms River, New (DAEC) Technical Specifications to consideration. Jersey 08753 incorporate changes to fire protection LocalPublic Docoment Room Attorneyforlicensee: G.F. surveillance requirements taking into location: Cedar Rapids Public Ubrary. Trow bridge. Esquire. Shaw, Pittman, account the installation of fire detection 500 First Street, S.E., Cedar Rapida Iowa potts, and Trowbridge.1800 M Street, systems in most areas of the plant 52401. NW., Washington. D C. 20036. containment safety.related equi ment. . Attomeyforlicensee: Jack Newman, NRCBmnch Chief: John A.Zwolinski' Pmsently the DAEC Technica . Muim. Had F. ReMaquim, i Specifications require that a continuous Newman and Holtzinger.1025 Indiana and Michigan Electric Company, fire watch must be established within Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald one hour in the event a fire barrier is D.C.20038. C. Cook Nuclear Plant. Unit Nos.1 and found to be nonfuncticnal.The recent NRCSmnch Chief: Domenic B. 2, Birrien County, Michigan installation of a fire detection system at Vassallo. A C, would permit e alaxaum of Iowa Electric Ught and Power Company. Date of amendment request: February current cuHnuous fin watch 14.1985' Docket No. 56-331 Duane Arnold requirement. The licensee has therefom Energy Center' Unn County
- Iowa Description of amendment request:
requested to cnange that requirement to The amendments would revise the an hourly watch in the event a fire Date ofamendment reguest Technical Specifications by updating the barrier is found to be nonfunctional.%e December 7,1984. plant heatup and cooldown curves to licensee has also proposed an additional Description ofomendment reguest reflect the recent reac'or vessel material change to correct a typographical error ne Iows Electric Light and Power surveillance capsule t xamination and in the Technical Specifications. Company (the licensee) proposes to analysis. Basisforpmposedno significant revise the Duane Arnold Energy Center Basisforproposedno significant hazards consideration determination: (DAEC) Technical Specifications to hazards consideration determination ne Commission has provided guidance reflect conformance to the Type C The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of standards testing criteria of 10 CFR Part 50. concerning the application of the of no significant hazards consideration Appendix J. Paragraph Ill.C.2.(b) for stzndards for determining whether determination by giving certain containment isolation valves. license amendments involve no examples (48 FR 14870, April 6.1983). The present Technical Specifications significant hazards considerations by One of the examples of actions distinguish between those valves tested providing certain examples (48 FR considered hkely to involve no with air and those tested with water. 14871). One of these examples (ii)is a significant hazards consideration is The DAEC Technical Specifications change that constitutes an additional example (vi) relating to a change which state that vahes tested with water shall - hmitation, restnetion, or control not either may result in some increase to the be pressurized to 54 psig (P.). However,' presently included in the technical probability or consequences of a 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix J. Paragraph specifications. He proposed presiously analyzed accident or may Ill.C.2.(b) requires the tests be amendments are directly related to this reduce in some way a safety margin, but conducted at a pressure not less than example in that revised heatup and where the results of the change are 1.10 P,. He proposed change request cooldown curves are required to meet clearly within all acceptable criteria would revise the Technical the reactor vessel fracture toughness with respect to the system or component Specifications to conform to the Type C requirements in 10 CFR Part 50. specified in the Standard Review Plan. testing requirements of to CFR Part 50. Appendix G. These new limits on The pmposed change would relax the Appendix l, Paragraph Ill.C.2.(b). and heatup and cooldown constitute an continmus fire watch requirement to an would change the test pressure from 54 a dditional limit a tion, restriction. and F "y fire watch in the presence of a psig to the more restrictive pressure of control not presently included in the '. ire detection system. Such a relaxation 1.10 P.. current heatop and cooldown curves ; may result in some reduction in a safety Basis forno significant hozords the Technical Specifications. On this margin, but the results of the change in consideration determination %e i bssis. the Commission proposes to conjunction with the fire detection Commission has provided guidance determine that the amendments involve system modifications are clearly within concerning the application of standards no significant hazards consideration. all acceptable criteria in the Standard of no significant hazards consideration Review Plan Section 9.5.1. determination by providing certain LocalPublic Document Room location h1aude Reston Palenske An ther example of actions involving examples (48 FR 14870 April 6,1983). n s gnificant hazards consideration is One such example (ii) relates to a Memorial Library,500 Market Street, St-example (i) a purely administrative change that constitutes an additional Joseph Michigan 49085. change to Technical Specifications: For limiting restriction, or control not Attorney forlicensee: Gerald example. a change to achieve presently included in the Technical Charnoff. Esquire. Shaw. Pittman. Potta consistency throughout the Technical Specifications: For example, a more and Trow bride,1800 M Street. NW Speesfications, correction of an error, or stringent survei!!ance requirement. Wa shington. D.C. 20038-change in nomenclature. He proposed Changing the Type C tuting pressure for NRCBranch Chief Steven A. Varga. change to correct an error is containment isolation valves from the
7ii. W Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednesday March 27, 1985 / Notices 8214'1 d e .., ~ current pressure of P.to a pressure of with the ARE program, so that a no based upon the supportmg transient end 6 1.10 P. is an additional restriction not siginificant hazards consideration IDCA analyses at off-rated conditioses. currcntly in the DAEC Technical findmg can now be made. Removing the thermal peaking factee The Commission has provided seldown requirement will not increase Specifications. The prbposed change is. guidance concerning determination if the probability of any such transiest oe 3 therefore, encompassed by the above significant hazards consideration exists, accident, as it is not the initiating event [. cited example. Therefore. the staff hasJnade a by providing certain standards (10 CFR of any accident. proposed determination that the 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an Deleting the APRM flow-biased rod ~, apphcation invols es no significant operating license for a facility involves block as a Ilmiting Safety System j i no significant hazards consideration if Setting [LSSS) will not change the .c harards consideration. Loco /Public Document Room operation of the facility in accordance probability of any accidents because no location: Cedar Rapids Pubhc 1.ibrary, with the proposed amendment would credit is taken for its function in any ) 500 First Street. S.E., Cedar Rapids. Iowa not (1) Involve a significant increase in safety evaluation. the probability or consequences of an Adjusting the APRM flow biased Attorney for licensee: lack Newman, accident previously evaluated, or (2) scram and rod blocks to allow operation i 52/A Esquire. Harold F. Reis. Esquire, create the possibility of a new or above the 100% toad line impacts only l Newman and HoltzinFer.1025 different kind of accident from any the Rod Withdrawal Error and Control ) Connecticut Avenue. NW., Washington. accident previously evaluated, or (3) Rod Drop Accidents.Both the accidents .t involve a significant reduction in a are analyzed in the UFSAR. Herefore, j D C,20036 NRC Branch Chief-Domenic B-margin of safety. the possibility of a different type of l
- 1. APRAf System Changes. Adjusting accident is not created.
Vassallo. the flow-biased equations of APRM ne thermal peaking factor setdown Iowa Flettric Light and Poder Company, scram and rod blocks will allow requirement was instituted to protect the 1 Docket No. 50-331. Duane Arnold peration above the 100% toad line at fuel from transients and accidents Energy Center. Linn County Iows less then rated power / flow conditions. Initiated from off. rated conditions. Date of omendment request;lanuary
- Operation above the 100% load line is Replacing the peaking factor setdown
) d 11.1985, as supplemented March 15. achieved by withdrawal of control rods function with equivalent flow and 7 1985 at low power / flow conditions using power. dependent MCPRs and Description of amendment request: preestablished withdrawal sequences. MAP 11tGRs will not create a new or (S ne proposed amendment would revise ne only accidents initiated by different type of accident. f: the Duane Amold Energy Center withdrawal of control rods are the Rod Deleting the APRM Rod Block as an (DAFC) Techmcal Specificatiors (TS) Withdrawal Error and Control Rod Drop 1.SSS will not introduce a new or y reflecting the previously proposed Accidents, which require a withdrawal different accident because no credit is g operation with an extended load line of a rod out-of sequence and a I" '" ** N'I""#"' lyses of design limit. and the presently proposed decoupling of the control blade from its The supporting ana p g improvements to the Average Power drive, respectively. Both of these events bash events and abnormal operstmg Range Monitor (APRM) and Rod Block are independent of the withdrawal trans,ients were conducted above the E Monitor IRBM). The APRM. RBM and sequence used or final rod pattem 100% load line (100% Power 87% Flow). TS ( ARTS) improvements are intended chosen.Thus, the probabihty of these in all cases, except the Feedwater to increase the plant operating events is not increased from that Controller Failure (FWCF) transients, j anal zed in the Updated Final Safety the results were bounded by those ( efficiency. update the compliance with the thermal margins rcquirements. Anahsis Report (UFSAR) by operation analyzed at the 100% power.100% flow y improve the accuracy and response of above the 100% load line. The operation condition and thus the margin of safety the pertinent instrumentation. and to above the 100% load line is bounded by i r these events are not reduced above, improve the man / machine interface.The the analyses conducted at the 100% those previously analyzed. While the proposed improvement program would power and 100% flow conditions, except results of the FWCF transient at the modify the Technical Specifications as for the Feedwater Controller Failure (100. 87) point were slightly worse than follows: transient. However, the Feedwater those at rated conditaons, the margin of
- The RBM se points will be changed Controller Failure is not the most safety is not degraded,as this is a from f 6./ %cd to power. dependent limiting transient for determining the nonlimiting event and is not used for
[ settings; and operating limits. nus, the consequences determining the operating hmit MCPRs. 2.The APRM system flow-biased of an accident are not increased from which define the margin of safety. setpoints setdown requirement will be those previously analyzed in the Replacing the requirement to perform I eliminated. and the flow. biased APRM UFSAR. the thermal peaking factor setdown with f setpoint values will be changed. The requirement to setdown the equivalent flow and power. dependent i Basis forpropcsedno sigmficant APRM flow biased scram and rod block MCPRs and MAP 1JiGRs will ensure that horords consideration determination: equations when the maximum fraction the margin of safety is not reduced by j The proposed submittalis similar to the of hmiting power density (MFLPD) eliminating the setdown requirement. previous requests for amendments to the exceeds the fraction of rated core Deleting the APRM Rod Block as an
- I h
Hatch and the Monticello plants. In thermal power (FRP) is being eliminated. 1.SSS will not reduce the margin of e l th'ose cases, the staff made a In order to insure that the consequences safety as the APRM Rod Block will be determination that a significant hazards of any abnormal operating transient or maintained in the other sections of the h consideration was involved. The staff's loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) are not Technical Specifications. determination was based on the novelty increased by this change. flow and
- 2. RodB/ocA Monitor (RBM) System and the complexity of the ARTS power-dependent Mmimum Critical Changes. %e current flow. biased RBM Il improvement program at that time.
Power Ratio (MCPR) and Maximum rod blocks protect localized regions of Subsequent reviews of the Hatch and Average Planar Linear Heat Generation the core from inadvertent withdrawals the Monticello apphcations have Rate (MAPiliCRilimits are being added ] c!anfied the safety issues associated to the Technical Specifications and are of control rods which would violate the
12148 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednesday. March 27, 1985 / Notices S fety Limit MCpR. i e.. rod withdrawal Newman and Holtzinger.1025 %erefore, since the application for inti error (RWE) accidents. The new power. Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, amendment involves proposed changes in < referenced RBM setpoints are based D.C.20036. similiar to an example for which no I upon the supporting RWis analyses; NRCBranch Chief: Domenic B. significant hazards consideration exista. LOJ which ensure with a 95% probability at a Vassallo. the staff has made a proposed Chi 95% confidence level (9555 limits} thatIowa Electric Light and Power Company, determination that the application th, the Szfety Limit MCpR will not be. Docket No.50-331.Duane Arnold invoves no significant hazards ( violated by an single withdrawal of a control rod. Therefore, replacmg the Energy Center, Linn County. lows consideration. a c, Loco /Public Document Room
- P current flow-biased rod blocks with Date of amendment request: January power. referenced rod blocks will not 11.1935.
location: Cedar Rapids Public Library, I"' increase the probabihty of any event Description of amendment request: 500 First Street. SE., Cedar Rapids. Iowa ne ggz9,- (RWE) previously analyzed. In addition. The proposed amendment would change er the probability of an RWE event is not the Duane Arnold Energy Center Attorneyforlicensee: Jack Newman, di increased by this change due to the (DAEC) Technical Specifications to Esquire. Harold F. Reis. Esquire, st increased operator confidence in the incorporate revisions in pressure. Newman and Holtzinger.1025 el new RBM system. as the new hardware temperature operating limits for the Connecticut Avenue. NW., Washington, p, for the RBM s.sstem, which supports the reactor vessel and revise the minimum D.C 20036-a power. dependent limits, is simpler and temperature, for which the reactor NRC Branch Chief: Domenic B. T more reliable than the old syster.. vessel head bolting studs can be in Vassollo. 2 The definition of a Limiting Control tension, from 100 *F to 74 *F. The Nebraska Public Power District. Docket Rod Pattern (LCRP) has been r evised pressure temperature operating limits 5 based upon the supporting RWE for the reactor vessel are being revised No. 50-298. Cooper Nuclear Station
- n analyses provided in the hcensee's to reflect minor changes In the fracture Nemaba County. Nebraska submittal. These ana!yses show, with toughness due to 6 effective full power Date ofamendment request:
C 95/951imits, that an RWE initiated when years of neutron fluence on the vessel. December 20,1984. as supplemented by ( the plant is not on an LCRP will not The revision of the bolting stud tension submittal dated February 22.1985. r violate the Safety Limit MCPR with the temperature from 100 *F to 74 *F is Description of amendment request: I shown by the licensee RBM bypassed. Therefore. revising the operability and surveillance comply with the Comm)ission'sanalyses to The proposed amendment would revise requirements of the RBM system based regulation 10 CFR 50 Appendix G. the Technical Specifications (TS) for (1) upon the new defin tion of an LCRP will Basis forproposedno significant average power range monitor (APRM) I not increase the probability or hozord.< consideration determination flow transmitter calibration. (2) definition of " OPERABLE. magnitude of the consequences of any The Commission has provided guidance cccident previously analyzed. concermng the application of standards OPERABILITY", (3) NUREG-0737, Item The RBM system's design function is of no significant hazards determination II.K.3.18. " ADS Logic Modification", and to prevent locahzed fuel failures due to by giving examples (48 FR 14870. April 6. (4) Cooper Nuclear Station organization RWE accidents. which have presiously 1983). One such example of actions chan8e' bien analyzed. That design function has considered likely to involve no (1) APR3/ flow Transmitter not been changed by converting to significant hazards consideration is Calibration. The proposed change example (vi relating to a change which would correct Section 4.1. Bases and a power-dependent setpointo and defining either may r)esult in some increase to the ncte to Table 4.2.C. " Surveillance nrw operabihty and surseillance r:quirements of the RBM system based probability or consequences of a Requirements for Rod Withdrawal Block upon the new definitica of an LCRP. ' previously-analyzed accident or may Instrumentation" to reflect actual Therefore, the possibhty of a new or reduce in some way a safety margin. but conditions resulting during calibration of different accident is not created. where the results of the change are the APRM Flow Biasing Network. 'Ihe supporting analyses of RWE clearly within all acceptable criteria Current TS state that during calibration accidents demonstrate that the MCPR with respect to the system or component ...a zero f sw.%nal will be sent to margin of safety is not reduced by the specified in the Standard Review half of the A /Rhrs re. i ing in a half t new power. dependent setpoints and Plan...: for example, a change resulting scram and rod block conow " cperability and surseinance from the application of a small However, each reactor recirculatio. requirements for the RBM system. refinement of a previously used flow unit, when in the calibration mode. Therefore, the proposed change will not calculational model or design method, actually sends a full flow signal to half result in any reduction of a safety The pressure temperature fracture of the APRhrs producing a rod block but ma rgin. toughness has been revised due to 6 full not a half scram. The licensee states Thxrefore. since the application for power years of neutron fluence. The that even without the half scram signal, amendment involves proposed changes revision incorporates a calculational a substantial margin from fuel damage is which meet the Commission's standards refinement accounting for neutron. provided by the 120% high flux scram f;r cases where no significant hazards iluence. The reduction of the which is in effect during calibration. consideration exists, the staff has made temperature from 100 'F to 74 'F for (2) Definition of " OPERABLE-o proposed determination that the which reactor vessel head bolting studs OPERABILITY".The proposed change application involves no significant can be in tension will comply with the would expand the present definition of b:zards consideration. Commission's regulations. Both of the operability to explicitly include Loco /Public Document Room above changes may result in reduction functionality of support systems and location: Cedar Rapids Public Library, of safety margins. but the results of components such as instrumentation. 500 First Street. SE.. Cedar Rapids. Iows these changes are clearly within the control, power and other auxiliary SK01. acceptable criteria with respect to systems. The present definition of Attorneyforlicensee: Jack Newman, components specified in the Standard operable requires only that a system or Esquire, Harold F. Reis. Esquire, Review Plan section 5.3.1. component be capable of performing its
- bp I
27, 1985 / Notices '12149 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednesday, March
- g. Because the proposed de== does consistency throughout the Technical not introduce any new moda of t
( L i intended function in its required manner Specifications. correction of an error oroperation, the possibility of an acddant in order to be considered operable. a change in nomenclature.The change of a different type than analyzed in the (3) NUREG-0?J7 Item il.K.118. " ADS,ed by the licensee relative to the Final Safety Analysis Report would not The proposed pro' Logic Modifications"Yhe TS relative to AP i flow transmitter calibration resulfTrom the change; therefore, the change would revise inv aves only a correction to the Bases proposed license ameMmnt does not the automatic depressurizatios system section and to an explanatory note to a create the possibility of a new or 4 (lids) to be consistent vdth ADS table to reflect actual plant design. different kind of accident from any actuation logic modifications previously These changes do not affect any accident previously evaluated. g approved by the staff in a letter dated surveillance operations oflimitmg June 6,1984.The approved ADS logic conditions for operation. The proposed
- 3. Because the proposed steendment modifications re, ult in eliminating the changes are descriptive and purely eliminates the peed for operator need for manual actuation for transient administrative in nature. As such, the actuation of ADS for certain eventa, and accident events which do not proposed changes fall within the scope thereby freeing the operator to monitor I
directly produce a high drywell pressure of example (i). On this basis, the. and evaluate the accident or transient i l signal. Consequently the licensee will Commission proposes to determme that and take actions to combat any I eliminate the high drywell pressure these changes involve no significant additional concerns, the proposed change does not reduce, but enhance the permissive from the ADS logic and add hazards considerations. a manualinhibit switch. The proposed (2)Def nition of " OPERABLE. margin to e,7ety. TS change would delete ali references to OPERABILITY", ne Commission has ne staff agrees with the licensee *a 2 psig drywell pressure frcm Table 3.2.B provided guidance concerning the evaluation that the proposed change for ADS' circuitry requirements and add application of the standards in 10 CFR meets the three criteria of the surveillance requirements for the 50.92 by prusiding certain examples (48 Commission's guidance as stated above. f' manualinhibit switches to Table 4.2.B. FR 148 0). One of the examples of On this basis, the Commission proposes (4) Coc;'er Nuc/ car Station actions involving no significant hazards to determine that the application doca W O/yanization Charge. The proposed TS considerations. i.e. example (ii). relates not involve a significant hazards r change reRects changes in the CNS to a change that constitutes an consideration. 0 organization as follows: (a) Changes of additional limitation, restriction or (4) CooperNuclearStorion position title. (b) a change in the control not prese'stly in the Technical Organization Change.%e Commission I reporting requirements for the Chemistry Specilications. Tne proposed change has provided guidance concerning the I and Health Pnysics (HP) Supenisor, and would make the definition of operable (c) the addition of a control room more limiting and is, therefore. similar to application of the standards in super isor to the plant staff. The this example.The Commission therefore 50.92 by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870). Examples of actions not 7 changes of position title are proposed proposed to determine that this action likely to involve signincant hazard l for the convenience of the licensee to involves no significant hazards considerationinclude actions specified more accurately describe position duties and responsibihties. The proposed (3) NUREG-07J7, Item ll.K.J.18. " ADS as (i) purely administrative changes to considerations. the Technical Specifications. (ii) change in the reporting rt>quirements of Logic Afodifications". The Commissbn the Chemistry and HP Supenisor were has provided standards for determining changes that constitute an additional made to address the guidelines of whether a significant hazards limitation. restriction. or control not Regulatory Guide 18 for experience consideration exists (10 CFR 50 92(c)). A presently include in the Technical level. As a result of these comments.It Specifications. and (vii) a change to [ is proposed that a broken line be added pmposed amendment to an operating license to a facihty insolves no make a license conform to changes in to the organization chart between the signincant hazards consideration if the regulations, where the license Senior Red / Tech Advisor and the operation of the facility in accordance change results in very minor changes to C b Chemistry and HP St.pervisor to with the proposed amendment would facility operations clearly in keeping indicate the oversight function of the not. (1) Involve a significant increase in with the regulations.The proposed Senior Rad / Tech Advisor.This latter the probability or consegunt.e of an changes in position title are t manager will review and direct the accident previously evaluateu or (2) administrative in nature and fall within ) efforts of the Chemistry and HP create the possibihty of a riew or example (i) above.The proposed change Supervisor until he has attained the different kind of accident fro ~t any relative to the reporting requirements of the Chemistry and liealth Physics requisite esperrence level specified in accident previously evaluated. or (3) Regulatory Guide 1.B. The addition of involve a signihcant reduction in a Supervisor reflects an additional control on this position and as such is similar to the control room supen-isor, who will be i margm of safety. a qua!Ified senior reaClor operator. The proposed TS changes result from example (ii).%e addition of a control ( y reflects the changes in staffmg that were plant modifications mviously approved room supervisor who is a j made m accordance with the minimum by the staff in a letter dated June 6.1964. senior reactor operator was made to g staffing requirements of 10 CFR 50 54. The licensee has evaluated the proposed comply with the requirements of to CFR Bosts forproposed no sigmficant TS changes against each of the above 50.54.This proposed change is therefore borords consideration determination: three cnteria and has provided the xample (vii this b .f t (1) APRAf Flow Tronsmuter following results of the evaluationin the ,, p, Cohb ction. The Commission has application dated December 20,1964: that these changes involve no significant p{ prosided guidance conceming the 1.Because the proposed change hazards considerations. apphcation of the standards in 10 CFR eliminates the need for operator LocalPublic Document Room r, 50 92 by providmg certain examples (48 actuation of the ADS System for certain location: Auburn Public Ubrary.11815th p FR 148*0). One of the examples of transient and accident events. it Street, Auburn. Nabraska 6a305 b actions involving no signihcant hazards decreases the consequences of an Attorney for licensee:Mr. G.D. considerations is example (i) purely accident previously evaluated and has Watson.Nebtaska Pubbe Power I administratne changes to the Technical no eifect on its probability of occurring. W Specifications, for example to achieve
12150 F{diral Regist:r / Vol. 50. N:. 59 / Wedn;sd;y M;rch 27. 1985 / N;tices District. Post Office Box 499, Columbus. revision of CE Report. " General Electric accident previously evaluated: (2) create Nebraska 68601. Standard Application for Reactor Fuel". .the possibility of a new or different kind NRCBranch Chief Domenic B. (NEDE-24011-P-A-6. April 1983) and of accident from any accident previously Vessallo. has been determined by the NRC to be evaluated; or (3) involve a significant NIbraska Public PoweIDistrictMocket acceptable. reduction in margin of safety. 3.MCPR Curve 8 The proposed De proposed amendment would base No. 50-298. Cooper Nuclear,-Station. amendment would result in small the calculation of the trip setting on Nrmaha Count). Nebraska changes to the MCPR curves to be NRC-approved methodology but would Date of amendment request:)anuary consistent with the operation of the not specify.a value for setting as is 10.1985, as supplemented by submittal reactor core during fuel Cycle 10. In presently the case.The NRC staff has dated February 28.1985. addition, the range of applicability determined that the proposed Desenption of amendment request: would be changed so that separate amendment would not: The proposed amendment would revise curves would be used for beginning of (1) Involve a significant increase in the Technical Specifications (TS) to cycle and end of cycle instead of a the probability or consequences of an support operation of Cooper Nuclear single curve for the entire cycle. The accident previously evaluated because Station (CNS) during the upcoming fuel MCPR curves have been calculated the value of this tnp setting would not Cycle 10 and to expand the flexibihty of using the NRC. approved methodology of change for a particular core i plant limits to permit operation with NEDE-24011-P-A-6. April 1983.The configuration. lust the way it is barrict.t> pc fuel and hafnium (General Cycle 10 reload will use fuelidentical to expressed in the TS. Only small changes Electric HAid 1) control rods. The that used previously at CNS. in trip setting are expected to result from proposed amendment would revise the
- 4. Description of Contro/ Rod changes in core configuration. In either following areas:
Materials. The proposed amendment case, the resultant tnp setting is based
- 1. Rod B;ock Monitor (RBM) Upscale would change the description of control on the same NRC-approved Trip Setting rod materials in TS Section 5.2 to calculational methodology.
- 2. Maximum Average Planar Linear include the use of hybid design hafnium (2) Create the possibility of a new or Heat Cencration Rate (MAPU!GR) control rod assemblies.The Hybrid I different kind of accident from any Curves.
Control Rod (HICR) Assembly has been accident previously evaluated because
- 3. Minirrum Critical Power Ratio designed by General Electric (GE) to be the resultant value of trip setting would (MCPR) Curves.
used as direct replacement for the be based on NRC-approved 4 Description of Control Rod present control rod assemblies. The calculational methods as described h erials-original control rods contain only boron
- b*
These proposed changes are carbide. B.C. as the absorbing material. described in more detail below. The HICR assemblies use B.C absorber I3I I"* I'* * *.8***"I"".'""'" 1.RBM Upscale Tng Settmg The cubes and three solid hafnium rods in margin of safety because. as discussed proposed amendment would change the the outside edge of each wing.The HICR ab ve. only small changes in trip setting way in which the RBM upscale inp design will lengthen control rod lifetime. are expected to result from changes in setting is expressed in the TS. The The description of these control rods com configuration and for a particular existing trip setting is expressed in was submitted to the NRC by CE in Core configuration there would be no terms of recirculation loop flow plus a topical report NEDE-22290. Based on the difference in trip setting as a result of constant value. The proposed staffs evaluation of the information the amendment. amendment would replace the constant provided in (a) NEDE-22290. (b) a Based on the above, the staff proposes with a variable parameter that would meeting with GE representatives. and (c) to find that the proposed TS changes to vary with core configuration. For each responses to NRC staff questions, the the BRM upscale trip setting do not change in core conf;guration the value of staff concluded that there is reasonable involve a significant hazards the variable would be calculated using assurance that the substitution of Type I consideration. the methodology dehneated in the latest HICRs for other approved GE control 2RAPLHCR Curves. The Commission NRC approsed version of General blades will not result in unacceptable has provided standards for determining Electric (GE) Report " General Electric hazards to the public and should,in fact, whether a significant hazards St2ndard Application for Rearfor Fuel", result in improved control blade consideration exists [10 CFR 50.92(c)]. A (NEDE-24011-P-A) The methodology is performance and a positive contribution P.roposed amendment to an operstmg identical to that currently used to to reactor safety. Therefore. NEDE-bcense for a facility involves no determine the value of the trip setting as 22290, as amended to incorporate the significent hazards considerations if it is now expressed in the TS. staff's safety evaluation, was approved operation of the facility in accordance
- 2. MAPLHCR Curres. The proposed as a referenced document for the GE with the proposed amendment would amendment would resise the title of the Type I HICR by NRC letter dated August not (1) involve a significant increase in existing MAPLHGR curves to indicate 22.1983.
the probability or consequences of an the applicability of the curves for use Bcsis forproposedno significant accident previously evaluated. (2) create ~ barords consideration determination: the possibility of a new or different kind with barrier type feel as well as with the currently used fuel at CNS The addition 1.RBM Upscale Trip Setting. The of accident previously evaluated or(3) of barner fuel to these curves does not Commision has provided standards for involve a signifiant reduction in margin l necessitate a change to the numerical determining whether a significant of safety. I salues represented by the curves. hazards consideratic ex!sts [10 CFR The proposed amendment would Barrier type fuelis similar to previously-50 92(c)]. A proposed amendment to an change the title of the MAPUlGR curves used fuel at CNS except that a thin operating license for i, dacility involves to indicate their applicability with Zirconium liner is added to ^e inner no significant hazard: considerations if barrier type fuel, but would not change j surface of the cladding to recuce operation of the facility in accordance the numerical values of the curves. The cladding failures due to pellet. clad with the proposed amt ndment would lack of change in the MAPLHCR curves interaction. The barrier fuel design has not (1) involve a signir. cant increase in indicates that the type of barrier fuel i been incorporated into the current the probability or conequences of an involved in this proposed change has the
,k! i 1 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednesday. March 27, 1985 / N:tices 12*51 same nuclear and thermal involve a significant reduction in a maximum everage planar best generation limits.The HICR weight and characteristics as previously-used fuel. margin of safety. The MAPUfGR values for the barrier The staff has reviewed the proposed rod worth are the same as the current fuel were determinedysing NRC-amendment and the related topical control rod design, therefore the scram approved methodology.Because of these report. The licensee concludes that the speed and scram reactivity are the same l l e j and the above limits are not affected by considerations, and because t!ie barrier. proposed amendment does not involve a e type fuel design has been-found to be significant hazards consideration and the change. ceceptable to the NRC.we conclude that based on the following discussion thedetermined that:(1) ne probability of. Based on the above,the staff has f staff conchrs with this conclusion. C the possibihty or consequences of a The material evaluation, which occurrence or the consequences of an previously evaluated accident would not includes the chemical, physical, accident would not be increased above be significantly increased and the mechanical and irradiation properties, those anlayzed in the Final Safety h be created. Also, because the design of indicates that data and experience Analysis Report (FSAR) because the J possibility of new accidents would not ( the ba.rier fuelis intended to reduce the demonstrate acceptable corrosion weight and envelope of the HICR are identical to those of the currently used resistance in high temperature water possi lity of fuel cladding failure, we and steam exist for hafnium in BWR assemblies, and the nuclear and conclude that the margin of safety control rods. The physical properties mechanical properties of the HICR do 4 would be increased. Based on these expected to be germane to control not differ from currently used assemblies in a significant way:(2) the conclusions, we find that the proposed application indicate acceptable '.~ changes to the MAPUiGR curves meet performance in the BWR environment. possibility of an accident different from the Commission's standards cited The mechanical evaluation indicates those analyzed in the FSAR would not above. and the staff, therefore, proposes that the thermal expansion and result from these changes because, in to determine that this change to the TS irradiation growth of hafnium will not addition to the above, these systems [ does not involve a significant hazards interfere with handle and velocity would not be operated in a manner new consideration. or different from that described in the limiter. /
- 3. MCPR Cun es. The Commission has A nuclear evaluation indicates that FSAR and (3) the margin of safety as
]6 provided guidance concerning the the lilCR will have no significant impact analyzed in Technical Specifications f application of the standards in 10 CFR on core and fuel operation when used as would not be reduced because the proposed amendment involves no 50 92 by providing certain examples (48 a replacement for the current B.C significant relaxation of the criteria used 3 FR 14870). One of the examples of contr irod assemblies. Experiments to establish safety limits. no significant cetions involving no significant hazards provide critical benchmarks for relaxation of the bases forlimiting I considerations, i.e. example (iii). is a calculations and illustrate a minimum ) change resulting from a nuclear reactor impact on local power and flux safety system settings. and no core reloadmg. if no fuel assemblies distributions with all, hafnium rods. An significant relaxation in limiting significantly different from those found even smaller impact is expected for conditions for operation.Therefore the - previously acceptable to the NRC for a HICR which is a mixture of hafnium and staff finds that operation of the facility 2 previous core at the facility are B.C. Therefore. the IUCR can be used in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:(1) Involve a involved. The proposed changes to the without change in the current lattice sigmficant increase in the probability or MCPR curves are necessitated by a core physics treatment of control rod consequences of an accident previously reload at CNS with fuel identical to assembhes and current d'esign evaluated. (2) create the possibility of a types previously used at the facility.The procedures. new or different kind of accident; or (3) I proposed changes to the MCpR values Thermal-hydraulic evaluation shows involve a sigmficant reduction in a were calculated us!ng NRC approved that the maximum temperature of the I' methodology.Therefore. the staff finds new r ds is not sigmficantly different margin of safety. Accordingly, the Corrmission proposes to determine that. ( that the proposed changes fall within fr m the currently used control rod the proposed changes to the TS involve the Commission's example (iii) of an assemblies. action not likely to involve a significant An accident evaluation shows that the no significant hazards considerations. Loco / Public Document Room I hazards consideration' HICR weight and envelope are identical location: Auburn Public 1.ibrary.118 Accordmgh., the staff proposes to to the current assembhes.The determine that the proposed change t mechanical and nuclear properties of 15th Street, Auburn. Nebraska 68305. the MCPR cun es in colves no significant the HICR do not differ from the current Attorney forlicensee Mr. G.D. hazards constderations. assembhes in any measures that might Watson, Nebraska Public Power i
- 4. Description of Contro/ Rod be significant during normal or accident District. Post Office Box 499. Columbus, Nebraska 68601.
f Afoterials. ne Commission has conditions. provided standards for determining The HlCR is, except for minor NRCBmnch Chief Domenic B. whether a significant hazard differences, mechanically identical to Vassallo. o J, consideration exists [10 CFR 50 92(c}l. A the BWR assemblies for which many Nr est Nuclear Enemy Company, et proposed amendment to an operating reactor years of safe operating M, t No. M6. Estone license for a facility involves no experience are available. Accordingly, Nuclear Power Stalion, Unit 2, New i a significant hazards consideration if the mechanical safety analysis for the tondon County, Connecticut operation of the facility in accordance HICR is enveloped by the mechanical Date of amendment request: February with the proposed amendment would safety analyses for the current not (1) involve a significant increase in assemblies. 6,1985 the probability or consequences of an The reactor core response for the Description of omendment request accident previously evaluated; or (2) HICR design has been evaluated against he proposed changes in the Techmcal create the possibihty of a new or the current control rod design for Specifications are based on anticipated q different kind of accident from any comparison with linear heat generation. Cycle 7 fuelinventory. Although not accident previously evaluated; or (3) minimum critical power rstio and expected, additional Technical
12152 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. So / Wednesday. March 27,1955 / !%odces Specificahon changes may be necessary a new or different kind of accident from Hampshire Avecoe. NW, Washingtous depend.og upon the fmalinventory. any accident previously evafusted: ce (3) D.C.Sarrua + During the Cycle 6 shutdown, plans involve a significant redactic in a NMCFreneA C1/ef James R. Miner. have been made to replace all fuel margin of safety. Accord.ngi *ime staff assembhes that contair?!eakers. Doe to proposes to determine that tk reposed Pacdc Gaa and Electa Cesapany s the uncertainty in the fuelinventory, the change does not involve a sign. ant (PGAEb Dockat Na, Es-33. Hummholdt final Cycle 7 re!oad design cannot be hazards consideration. Bay Nwt=r Power Plant. Umst No.3, performed until after the Cycle 6 Loco /Public Document Room Humboldt County. Cahfaassa shutdown and a determination is made location: Waterford Public Ubrary. Rope Dateofe hstreqvwtrhdy3EL ~ as to the exact fuelinventory to be used Ferry Road. Route 156. Waterfoed. 1984. in Cycle 7 (expected c idMay 1935). Connecticut. Description ofamendmerrt request The proposed changes in the Attorney farlicenseer Gerald Cerfield. PGAE proposed- (1) To amend License Technical Specif. cations modify the Esq.. Day. Berry and Howard. One No.DPR-7 to possess-but not-operate s!!owable region of operation when the Constitution Plaza. Hartford, statur (2] to delete ticrnse conditions core pow er distribution is monitored by Connecticut 061(D. related to seismic modrfications, the Excore Detector Monitoring System. NBCSmnch CAlep [ emes R. Miller. investigations and analysis required The new eme allows a wider range of Omaha Pubhc Pow er Dutrict. Dockas prior to NRC sothorization of a return to operahon (i e.. higher thermal power and No. 50-285. Fort Calhoun Sution. Unit Power operation:(3) to revise the a la ger axial shape index). The change No.1. Washington County Nebraska Technical Specificatrons (13s) to reflect establishes two curves to be used. A the possess-but-not-operate Status of new curve for the ahow able thermal Dee of amendmed revuese February license, and (4) to decommission power 5s. axial shape index has been 7,1985. Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 in accordance deseloped far the case where the total Descripticn cf airw>ndinent request: with a decommissioning plan : rbmitted radial peaking factx (Fo} rs less than or The amendment would add new with the application. Items 2. 3 and 4 equst to 1.62 while the present curve in technical specifications addressing the h will be noUced separately in the the Technical Specifications will be operability and surveillance Federal Repsser. Thia notice applies to app?icable for Fo values less than or requirernents for the New Toxic Cas item (1). l equal to 1719. Monitoring System. A new Toxic Gas g,f,p ,,g y,,jfffe,y The proposed changes trade range m Monitonng System was recently huwds conshtion deerminoth-rrdial peaking for more range in axial installed and declared operational. The The Commission has provided guidance shape indes. The maximum radial peak amendment wou!d also make conce-ning the appheation of the is specified in the Technical admmistrative chanees to correct the standards for a no signir. cant harards Specifications as a limit on F,, while the duplication of num';cring of a table. The consideration determination by maximum axial peak is specified by curtent techmcal rpecifications have providing certain examples (April 8. limits on the aual shapa index. The new two different tables nunibered 2-e. 1983. 48 FR 14670). Example [iil is a curve will sti'l assee that the peak Basis forproposedno significerrt change that constitutes an additional linear heat rate (i.e 15 e Kw/fi) assumed hozords corsideration determwohont limitation, restriction or control not in the LOCA anal) sis is not exceeded. The Commission has provided guidance ' pd included in b TSs. The The ir. crease in the a!!awable value of concerning the application of the proposed action to amend ucense No. the axial shape irMex will be offset by a standards in 10 CW 50.92 by providing DPR-7 to possess-bot-not-operate statua decrease in t e allow able value Fo certain examples (48 FR 14870). One of is a more restrictive license than the without changirg the design basis value the examples (ii) of actions not likely to resent license because the present for linear heat rate. Consequently, all involve a significant hazards ficense permits operation of the facility safety analyses involving linest heat consideration relates to changes that if certain conditions related to seismic rete are not impacted by the change, constitute additional restrictions or concerns are siet.Therefore. since the Similarly, the transients for which controls not presently included in the db rnple (iil Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio technical specifications. Another ceie of a guida the staff o he C m s (DNBR) is a concern are unaffected by the examples (f) of an acten not likely proposes to deter:nme that the proposed the change. since the preposed curve is to involve a significant hazards action does not involve a significant still bounsied b.* the curve in Technical consideration is a purely administrative hazards cocsaderation. Specification 3 26 (Figure 3 2-4). Figure change to the technical specifications. u D 3 2-4 provided the shapes that were The proposal to add new technical j input into sil DNBR design basis specifications to address the operability Ubrary h211 Street (County and surveillance requirements for the analyses. Courthouse). Enreka Cahfornia 95501. Basa forp'eposedno sigmficant new Toxic Cas Monitortng System hazardicansideration determination: comes under example (ii). The prepoeal Attomeyforhansee F%ithp A. Based on the above information, we to renurnber one table to avoid number Crane, Jr. Paare Cas and Electnc conclude that the proposed Technical duplication comes under example [i). Company. Post Office Bnx 7442. San Specification change would not irnpact Based upon the above. the staff Francisco CA 9t12tt the pres tously derived maximum proposes to determine that the NRCBroxh Chief: John A.Zwehnski. al!owable linear heat rate or other appbcation does not involve a Pennsylvarna Power & Ught Conspany, pararneters which could adversely significar t harards considerate Dociet No. W387 Susquehanna Steams impact plant transient or accident Loco /Pubhc Document Room Electric Station, Unit 1 Laserne County, analyses. Tbrefore. the proposed location: W. Dale Clark ubrary 215 p,,,,y g g chenge would not:(1) Involve a South 15th Stret t Omaha. Nebrasha significant increase in the peobability or 68102. Date of amendment request October consequences of an accident previondy Atmency Jbe licensee Isbocof. Iamb. 30,1984 es supplemented February 20. evaluated. or (2) create the posskitity of Leiby, and MacRae. tyn New 1985. l
("T Federal Register / Vol. 50 No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 1985 / Notices 12153 Description of amendment request: . Attorneyforlicensee: lay Silberg. not likely to involve significant basards consideration. Example (iii)is an The prcposed amendment would delete Esquire, Shaw, Pittman. Potts a license condition 2p(4)(b) to facility Trowbridge.1800 M Street NW., amendment to reflect a core reload where: Operating License No. NpF-14 for Washington. D.C. 20036. (1) No fuel assemblies significan0y Susquehanna Steaq) Electric ~ Station NRCBmoch Chief: A Schwencer. different from those found previously ~ (SSES). Unit 1. License Condition Penns3 vania Power & Light Company, acceptable to the Commission for a Previous core at the facility in question,- 1 2.C (4)(b) requires that {he hcensee Docket No. 50-387, Susquehanna Steasn 4 provide a new stability analysis Eleptric Station. Unit 1. Luzerae County, are involved; 'i indicating the results for appropriate Pennsy vania (2) No significant changes are made to - y exposure core conditions prior to startup Date ofamendment request: January the acceptance critaria for the Technical ~ i following the first refueling outage. 15.1985 as supplemented February 21. Specifications; In the Code of Federal Regulations (10 (3) ne analytical methods used to CFR part 50 Appendix A). General 1985. Description of amendment request: demonstrate conformance with the )' Design Criteria (CDC) 12. " Suppression The proposed amendent would revise Technical Specifications and regulations >l of Reactor Power Osci!ations." states: the Unit 1 Technical Specifications (TS) are not significantly changed; and ne reactor core and associated coolant. to support the operation of Susquehanna (4)he NRC has previonaly.found P control. and protectin systems shall be Steam Electric Station (SSES). Unit 1 at such methods acceptable. designed to assure that power oscdiations full rated power during the upcoming This reload wiU consist of 764 I, which can result in cond2tions exceeding assemblies,572 of which are once specified acceptable fuel design hmits are not Cycle 2. The proposed amendment burned GE fuel assemblies and 192 of possible or can be rehably andleaddy request to support this reload, changes .i ti detected and suppressed. the Technical Specifications in the which are new ENC type XN-1 fuel fcllowing areas:(1) Establishes assemblies. The Exxon fuel assemblies I' The hcensee has stated that the operating limits for all fuel types for the are very similar to the GE fuel license condition is more restrictive than upcoming Cycle 2 operation;(2) assemblies except for slight differences l GDC 12 in that it does not include the establishes the Average Power Range in the mechanical, thermal hydraulic C option to detect and suppress power Monitor setpoints;(3) reflects the and nuclear design. f oscillations. With the approval of replacement of approximately one Although the Exxon fuelis very Technical Specifications irnplementing quarter of the core with Exxon fuel similar to the GE fuel, the slight the guidance of General Electric Service assemblies for the upcoming Cycle 2 differences in mechanical, thermal-Infurmation Letter No. 380 (GE-SIL-380), operation; and (4) modifies the bases hydrau;ic, and nuclear design of the [ A: Revision 1. the licensee has stated that section to account for the use of Exxon bundles, and the use of different (; procedures for detecting and fael assemblies. analysis methodologies, required that a suppressing power oscillations at SSES To support the license amendment wide range of reanalyses be performed b have been implemented and compliance request for operation of Susquehanna by Exxon Nuclear Company (ENC).This I with the inter,t oflicense condition Unit 1 during Cycle 2 the licensee included reanalyzing for anticipated, f 2 C (4)(b) has been satisfied. submitted as attachments to the operations occurrences, performing Basis forproposedno significant application the following: LOCA and MAPIllGR analyses for the p-hazards consideration determination The method to detect and suppress
- 1. Susquehanna SES Unit 1 Cycle 2 Exxon fuel, and analyziry for the rapid Reload Summary Report (NpE drop of a high worth control rod to power oscillations incorporated into assure that excesolve energy will not be 015)
SSES Technical Specifications, based on II. Susquehanna Unit 1 Cycle 2 Reload deposited in the fuel. Analyses for guidance contained in GE-SIL-380. Analysis (XN-NF-84-116) normal operation of the reactor would satisfy GDC 12. Since the purpose { of license condition 2.C.(4)(b) is to III. Susquehanna Unit 1 Cycle 2 Plant ccnsisted of fuel evaluations in the assure that GDC 12 is satisfied, and Transient Analysis (XN-NF-84-118) areas of mechanical. thermal. hydraulic 6, since the license has an alternate and IV. Susquehanna Unit 1 Cycle 2 Plant and nuclear design. Transient Analysis Recirculation The use of the ENC type XN-1. fuel acceptable means to satisfy GDC 12 (! e. i the detection and suppression of power Pump Run.Up Results (XN-NF assemblies and the associated 118 Supplement 1) analytical methods used for the Cycle 2 oscillations). there is no longer any V. Susquehanna Unit 1 LOCA.ECCS reload analyses have been previously purpose served by license condition Anlysis MAPIJiGR Results (XN-approved by the Commission's staff for 2 C.(4)(b). Because the purpose of use in other boiling water reactors NF-84-119) license condition 2.C.(4)(b) has been VL Susquehanna SES Unit 1 Cycle 2 (BWR's). Based on previous experience. satisfied by other means, deletion of this Proposed Startup Physis Tests the staff has determined that only small license condition will not significantly Summary Description differences result between the use of increase the probability or consequence }. of accidents previousl> evaluated,wuill During the first refueling outage 192 - Exxon or GE analytical methods. not create the possibility of a new and . General Electric (GE) initial fuel Ihe other difference between the L different accident from any previously assemblies (approximately one quarter Cycle 1 core and the Cycle 2 core reload r, [ evaluated, and will not significantly of the core) will be replaced with new is in the core loading pattern. Cycle l is' reduce a safety margin. On that basis but substantially similar Exxon. type a standard GE BWR/4 initial core p< the NRC staff proposes to find this XN-1. fuel assemblies, configuration consisting of fuel Basis forPmposedNo Significant assemblies of similar enrichments 7 proposed change does not involve a Hazan/s Considemtion Determination: placed in a specific zone within the core. significant hazards consideration. in contrast the Gycle 2 core will be h 4,ocalPubhc Document Room The proposed amendent to the based on the conventional scatter load i Location: Osterhout Free ubrary. Susquehanna Technical Specification to principle where fresh reload assemblies [ Reference Department. 71 South support this reload is very similar to are scatter loaded throughout the core t Franklin Street. Wilkes. Barre. Example (iii) provided by the except for the center region and the core Commission of the types of amendments { Pennsylvania 18701. I y h
p- -.e 12154 F;d;r:1 RIgist:r / Vol. 50, No. 59 / W;dnesday, MJrch 27, 1985 / Notices ? p2riphery. Changing from a zone core PennsUvania Power & IJght Company, specifications, for example, a more I lo: ding pattern used during first fuel Docket No. 50-387, Susquehanna Steam stringent surveillance requirement."'Ihe i cycle to a scatter loading pattern for the Electric Station, Unit 1, Luzerne County, requested changes to satisfy NUREG-new reload assemblies during the Pennsylvania 0737. Item II.K.3.18 matches this e second cycle is an acce ted reload Date of amendment request January example and the staff, therefore, method that has been proved by the 31,1985. proposes to determine that this change staff for other BWR pl t reloads. Bescription of amendment request involves no significant hazards 7 Thus. this core reload involves the use NUREG-0737 Item II.K3.18 required consideration. of fuel assemblies that are not modification of the automatic Another of these, Example (1). significantly different from those found depressurization system (ADS) involving no significant hazards previously acceptable to the actuation logic to eliminate the need for consideration le "A purely Commission for a previously core at this manual actuation to assure adequate administrative change to the Technical facility. The request for amendment core cooling.The addition of the ADS Specifications: For example a change to changes the TSs to reflect new operating drywell pressure bypass timer and achieve consistency throughout the limits asrociated with the fuel to be manualinhabit switch to the Technical Specifications, a correction of inserted into the core are based on the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, an error, or a change in nomenclature. new core physics and are within the (SSES) Unit 1, satifies this requirement. The requested changes to correct the acceptente criteria. error related to the footnote in page 3/4 In the analyses supporting this reload.
- Since the ADS is considered one of the 3-28 of Table 3.3.3-1 of the Technical safety systems used to assure there have been no significant changes emergency core cooling. license Specifications clearly matches this in acceptance criteria for the Technical condition 2.C.(28)(e) required that the example and the staff, therefore, Specifications. and those analytical licensee propose Technical proposes to determine that this change methods used have previously been Specifications to cover the equipment involves no significant hazards found acceptable.
installed that eliminated the need for consideration. The only difference between this manual actuation of the ADS.The Loco / Public Document Room reload and Example (iii) provided by the changes to the Technical Specifications Location:Osterhout Free Library, Commission is related to the use of the requested in this amendment, except Reference Department,71 South Exxon analytical methods which are those on page 3/4 3-28, are all related to Franklin Street, Wilkes Barre, different than those used for Cycle 1. modifications made t( s,atisfy NUREG-Pennsylvania 18701. Howes er the Exxon anal)tical methods 0737 Item II.K.3.18 requirements and Attorneyforlicensee: Jay Silberg, have been previously approved by the associated license condition 2.C.(28)(e). Esquire, Shaw, Pittman. Potts a staff for use in the BWR s and the In addition, the licensee has proposed Trowbridge,1800 M Street NW., cnalytical results are not significantly in this amendment to correct errors Washington, D.C. 20036. different from those found previously contained in Table 3.3.3-1 Emergency NRCBranch Chief A Schwencer, acceptable to the Commission for the Core Cooling System (ECCS) Actuation initiel core at the facihty. Logic Instrumentation (page 3/4 3-28) of Penns%vania Power & Light Company, On the bases of the similarity the Technical Specifications. Footnote Docket No. 50-387. Susquehanna Steam between the proposed amendment and (a), where origmally located on this Electric Station, Unit 1, Luzerne County, tha Commissions Exarrple (iii) and the page. applied to es ery entry. Footnote Pennsyivada fact that the analytical methods used (a) states: Date of amendment request: January have been previously approved by the staff and do not provide results A channel may be placed in an operable 31,1985 as supplemented February 20. status for up to 2 hours for required 1985. significantly different, the Commission's surseillance without placing the tnp system Description of amendment request: In staff has concluded that operation of the in the tripped condition presided at least one the proposed amendment the licensee ficility in accordance with the proposed OPERABli channelin the same trip system has requested that:(1) Technical reload amendment would not:(1) is monitonna that parameter. Specification 4/3 6 6.3 be revised to Involve a significant increase in the This footnote was erroneously applied reflect the replacement of a one unit probability or consequences of an to the manual initiation functions, which cooler subsystem with 2 recirculation accident previously evaluated. (2) create can be performed without placing the fans to support drywell coohng the possibility of a new or different kind required system in an inoperable status, improvements. The subject unit cooler of accident from any previously and the Level 8 high pressure coolant subsystem will now be serving the evaluated: or (3) involve a sigmficant injection trip function which would general drywell area and the new reduction in the margin of safety. Based become unavailable if one channel were recirculation fans will be supporting the cn the foregoing discussion. the placed in an inoperable status. The safety.related function ef post-LOCA Commission's staff proposes to proposed amendment would remove this drywell air mixing governed by this determine that the amendment request footnote from these functions since it Technical Specification. (2) Technical does not invohe a significant hazards was incorrectly applied originally. Specification 4.8 4.1.a.1 be modified to consideration. Basis forproposedno significont achieve a greater level of clarity fot *his LocalPublic Document Room hozords considention determination: surveillance, which was previously Locotion: Osterhout Free Library. The Commission has provided guidance ambiguous in cases where no trip Reference Department. 71 South concerning the application of the setpoint or response time was provided. Frankhn Street. Wilkes-Barre, standards in to CFR 50 92 by providing The difference between the current Pennsylvania 18701. certain examples (48 FR 14870). One of Technical Specification and the Attorneyfor licensee: Jay Silberg. these. Example (ii), involving no proposed revision is in specifying how Esquire. Shaw. Pittman, Potts a significant hazards considerations is "A acceptance criieria shall be met for each Trowbridge,1800 M Street NW., change that constitutes an ardditioral type of breaker,i.e., magneticonly (HFB-Wa shington, D C. 20038. limitation. restriction, or control not M) and thermal-magnetic (HFB-TM. KB-NRCBronch Chief: A Schwencer. presently included in the technical 'IM).The degree of testing for a given
I g ? Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27. 1965 / Notices 12155 breaker remains unchanged due to the information is that two redundant control over penetration protectmn and proposed revision. (3) Technical breakers are to be OPERABLE. It therefore falls under mmple (ii) *a
- f. For Type KB-TM an informative change that constitutes an additional Specification Table l3.8.4.1-1 be revised footnote has been added since the limitation. restriction, or control not to reflect the replacgment ofinagnetic.
breaker arrangement is atypical from presently included in the Technica! only circuit breakers w(th th'ermal. Specification" of the Commission's ~ magnetic circuit breakers. Changing the the other types.
- g. The enttre listing has been guidance in(48 FN 14a70) on types of #
containment penetration over-current reorganized to be grouped by system amendments that are not likely to protection from magnetic-only to rather than randomly. involve significant hazards thermal. magnetic circuit breakers (6) DrywellCooling Two pairs of considerations. l o!!ows detection of substantially lower Type HFB-TM circuit breakers
- 4. In Technical Specification Table p
short circuit currents. associated with drywe!! cooling have 3.8.4.1-1 the licensee has proposed (4) Additional changes to Table been added to the table to support deletion of destgn information related to 3.8.4.1-1 are deleton of the following: recirculation fans IV418A and B which the overcurrent protection devices y 4 frome Rating /ULe Control of breaker are being added as discussed above. (Frame Rating /UI. Trip Setpoint and !j frame size and UL rating is ensurd by Basis forproposedno significant Response Time).nis equipmentis i the design change control process. hozords consideration determination:1. covered under the requirements of10 which is governed by 10 CFR 50.59. and In Technical Specification 3/4.6.6.3. ggg g g g,, therefore the information need not be these changes proposed support design gg hsted in the Technical Specifications. Im prior Commission approval, unless the g 7 Tnp Sctpoint: Due to the replacement At nosphe e e ir ut t and Cooling proposed change involves a change to j. of magneti with thermal. magnetic System The only safety.related aspect the Technical Specifications or an 4 circuit bret kers. the number of of this change is that Oe post.LOCA air unreviewed safety question. Although adiustrble (Type HfB-M. magnetic. mixing. and the air flow capability of the the change would delete design only) breakers has decreased by new recirculation fans is the same as information from the Technical approximately two-thirds. Tnp setpomts that of the unit cooler fans formerly used Specifications this equipment would still are not applicable to non.ad ustable for this purpose. Furthermore, the be covered under to CFR 50.59 which i breakers. The setpoint control of the equipment change is in accordance with does not permit any changes or adjustable breakers is ensored by the existing design criteria and will not replacement of equipment that is not the setpoint change control process, which adversely affect the function of any ,same as or equivalent to that currently is gos erned by 10 CFR $0.59, and system. Electric separation, seismic installed.%erefore this deletion merely therefore the information need not be integrity and all other required design provides flexibility within the bounds of I, 3 will be maintained. Furthermore, included in the Technical Specifications. criteria are met. As discussed above, the to CFR 50 59 without requiring changes Response Time:The response time safety function of post.LOCA mixing to the Technical Specifications. The is s cau e s de ribe drywell cooling requirements specified proposed changes therefore do not;(1) in the Technical Specifications will be Involve a significant increase in the 8 ata s d to ete e ac e b easier to maintain. Based on the above, probability or consequence of an I response time. Therefore, the column the proposed changes do not:(1) Involve accident previously evaluated. (2) create 0 has been deleted a significant increase in the probability the possibility of a new or different kind l" (5) Other changes to Table 3.8.4.1-1 or consequence of an accident of accident from any accident previously are the following editonal changes; previously evaluated (2) create the evaluated or(3) involve a significant of a new or different kind of reduction in the margin of safety. s. Circuit Dreaker Location has been possibilitfrom any accident previously S. In Technical Specification Table i a. j c a g d to,, Circuit Breaker accident g evaluated, or (3)invoin a significant 3_8.4.1-1 other changes have been
- b. " Molded Case Ctreult Breaker" dm is a ive and c ea y fall under o ch ge or is t e bte andard d ee e
Technical Specifications. to a need to any given breaker but, the amount of 8 ih***'
- i"* 1 *i "ifi'.*"Autely admirustrative differentiate test methods from those presenptiveness required to clarify the c naiderations 1
used for metal case circuit breakers The acceptance criteria applicable to any change to Technica Specifications: For surveillance is now tied to the types given breaker has.been increr. sed. example, a change to achieve i listed in the proposed change. and no Therefore, this change falls under e nsistency throughout the Technical metal case breakers are in use, so the example (ii)"a change that constitutes Specifications, correction of an error or deleted information serves no purpose. an additional timitation, restriction or a change in nomenclature.
- c. Editorial desenption of specific control not presently included in the
- 8. in Table 3.8.4.1-1 additional circuit I
equipment have been deleted. Systems Tech ucal Specifications" of the breakers were added to meet design I and equipment numbers is sufficient for Commission's guidance in (48 FR 14ero) critens specified for the modifications ; j this purpose. on types of amendments which are not described in Technical Specification 3/3
- d. Footnotes refernna to vendors have likely to involve significant hazards 6.8.3 pertaining to drywell cooling to i
) been deleted since they are considerations. Provide overcurrent protection for unnecessary, the type definitions they
- 3. In Technical Specification Table provided are covered by the revised 3.8.4.1-1 by replacing magnetic-only primary containment penetration conductors.Therefore the same basis for circuit breakers with thermal. magnetic
- e. Footnote "+" was revised (new circuit breakers safety has been no sigmficant hazards consideration as surveillance.
footnote *) to drop a reference to A and improved by the addition of this given for Technical 3pectilcation 3/4 B because this is not always the correct equipment, which can detect lower short SA3 (Item t abovej la applicable. designation. Furthermore, such specific circuit currents. This design On the basis of the above, the informationis unnecessary the key improvement provides additional Commission proposes to conclude that j ~
12156 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 1985 / Notices all the proposed changes involve no footnote from these functions since it ne intent of the trip setpoint in ist significant hazards consideration. was incorrectly applied originally, question is to insure isolation of the eu LocalPublic Documeht Room Basicforproposedno significant RCIC system occurs in the event of a St location: Osterhout Fre(Library,- hazards consideration determination design basis pipe break flow between (S Reference Department. 71 South ; The Commission has provided guidance 2.72 and 3.0 times maximum normal pc Franklin Street. Wilkes.Barff, concerning the application of the flow. Since the current pressure fc Pennsylvania 18701. standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing differential trip setpoint valve was re Attorneyforlicensee: Jay Silberg, certain examples (48 FR 14870). One of based on engineering judgment and to Esquire. Shaw. Pittman. Potts a these. Example (ii), involving no operating experience. it des not bi Trowbridge,1800 M Street NW significant hazards considerations is "A necessarily provide RCIC isolation it Wa shington. D.C. 20036 change that constitutes an additional within the design basis pipe break flow a NRC Branch Chief: A. Schwencer. limitation, restriction, or control not values.ne proposed change would a presently included in the technical replace the current trip setpoint valaes 4j Pennsylvaru,a Power & Light Company, specifications, for example, a more based on actualinplant test data s-Docket No. 50-388, Susquehanna Steam stringent surveillance requirement." He obtained during the startup test p Electric Statton, Unit 2 Luzerne County, requested changes to satisfy NUREG-program. This would assure that RCIC C P2nnsylvam,a 0737, item il K.3.18 matches this isolation occurs within the desired Dcte of amendment request: January example and the staff, therefore, design basis pipe break flow values. F 31,1985. proposes to determine that this change Since the proposed trip setpoints are C Descrip!!on ofcmendment request involves no significant hazards based on actual test data and the s NUREG-c737 Item II.K.3.18 required consideration. current values are based on engineering modifwation of the automatic Another of these. Example (i). Judgment, no previous evaluations are a I depressurization system (ADS) involving no significant hazards compromised and no new accidents are actuation logic to ehminate the need for consideration is "A purely created. In addition. the proposed values I manual actuation to assure adequate administrative change to the Technical are more conservative than the cunent s core cooling The addition of the ADS Specifications: For example a change to values, which increases the safety r manual inhibit switch to the achieve consistency throughout the margin. On the basis of the above the Susquehr.r.na Steam Electne Station Technical Specifications, a correction of staff has determined that the proposed (SSES). Ur.it 2, ccmpletes the an error, or a change in nomenclature. amendment would not:(1) Involve a i modifications to the ADS needed to ne requested changes to correct the significant increase in the probability or e a:tisf) this requirement.Since the ADS error related to the footnote in page 3/4 consequences of an accident previously 1 is considered one of the safety systems 3-28,of Table 3.3.3-1 of the Technical evaluated; or {2) create the possibility of i used to assure emergency core cooling, Specifications clearly matches this a new or different kind of accident from license condition 2 C.(12)(f) required that example and the staff, therefore, any previously evaluated, or (3) involve the licensee propose Technical proposes te determine that this change a significant reduction in a margin or Specifications to coser the equipment involves no significant hazards safety.The staff therefore has made a c nsideration. proposed determination that this installed that eliminated the need for LocalPubhc Document Room application for amendment involves no manual actuation of the ADS.The Loca#on: Osterhout Free Library, e gnificant hazards consideration. changes to the Technical Specifications Reference Department. 71 South LocalPublic Document Room r: quested in this amendment. escept Franklin Street. W ilkes. Barre, location: Osterhoust Free Library, those on page 3/4 3-28. are all related to Pe s a a1 01 Reference Department,71 South modifications made to satisfy NUREG-m, ,see ay Silberg' Franklm Street, Wilkes. Barre, 0737 Item II.K.3.18 requirements and cssociated license condition 2.C.(12)(f). Esq ha ttman' Pennsylvania 18701. g9 tre Morneyforlicensee: Jay Silberg, In addition. the licensee has proposed Washington. D.C. 20038. Esquire Shaw,Pittman,Potts a in this amendment to correct errors NRCBranch Chief: A Schwencer. contained in Table 3 3.3-1 Emergency Trowbridge,1800 M Street NW., Core Cooling System (ECCS) Actuation Penns)hania Power & Light Company, Washington, D C. 20036. Logic Instrumentation (page 3/4 3-28) of Docket No. 50-388, Susquehanna Steam NRCBmnch Chief A.Schwencer. the Technical Specificaticas Footnote Electric Station, Unit 2, Luzeme County, (e) where originally located on this Penns)lvania Penns)han,ta Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-387/388, Susquehanna page, app 1;ed to every entry. yootnote Date of amendment request: February Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 7,1985. Luzerna County, Pennsylvrnia A cher nel may be p' aced in an operable Description of amendment request: status for up to 2 hours for required The propcsed amendment to the Date of amendment request: October surveillance without placing the tnp system Technical Specifications (TS ) would 1,1984. in the inpped condition provided at least one revise the trip sehoint for tablation of Description of amendment request OPERABLI channel in the esme tnp s) stem the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling The proposed amendment would ta monitonng that parameter. (RCIC) system on high steam line incorporate controls in the form of This footnote was erroneously applied differential pressure. The current value limiting condition for operation (LCG) to the manualinitiation functions, which for this trip setpoint was initially based into the Technical Specifications on can be performed without placing the on engineerina judgment and operating equipment needed to insure proper required system in an inoperable status, experience. The proposed revised trip functioning of the isolated 480 volt and the Level 8 high pressure coolant setpoint value is based on actual test swing busses. injection trip function which would data obtained using the startup test ne licensee has identified a potential unreviewed safety question if become unavailable if one channel were program. placed in an inoperable status.The Basis forproposed no significant appropriate controls are not placed on proposed amendment would remove this hozords consideration determination: the power sources supporting the
t-l Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 59 / Wednesday March 27, 1965 / Notices 12157 L i ,j isloated 480 volt swing busses. In the Pennsyhanla Power & Light Compan'y, NRCBmnch Chief A.Schwencer, i current Technical Specifications for Docket No. 50-387 & 388, Susquehanna Power Authority of the Stata of New 'g Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Steam Electric Station, Units 1&2, ^ h [SSES) Units 1 and 2 igany of these Luzeme County, Pennsylvania N i r power sources are Inoperative p.e. down Date of amendment equest: February Oswego County, New York for maintenance) no LCO exists to ~ 11,1985'ption of amendment mquest. Date ofomendment mquest luly 13. require the awing busses to be returned Descti 1981, as supplemented May 3,1964, July to service within a specified time. A The proposed change to the 27,1984 and January 18,1965. j break in one recirculation line between Susquehanna Steam Electric Station ' Ee8Ct/Ption of amendment request- ,d the reactor vessel and the low pressure (SSES) Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical bse submittals supplement the coolant injection loop (LPCI)in Specifications would permit the number request for amendment dated July 13, l[' combination with a single failure of the ofindividuals on the Susquehanna 1981 which was noticed in the Federal Review Committee (SRC} to vary Register on February 24,1964 (49 FR 4kV power supply and an inoperative swing bus which both provide electrial quorum, which consists of a majority of Technical Specifications would revise between eight and twelve and require a 7040) He proposed revisions to the .l power to the other loop results in a all members or designated attematives the testing requirements for hydraulic h condition which renders both LPCIloops approved by the Senior Vice President shock suppressors (snubbers) and a*dd inoperable. Subsection 6.3.1.1.2 of the Nuclear, to be present for all formal requirements for mechanical snubber lh FSAR identifies the minimum meetings ) combinations of emergency core cooling The Technical Specifications currently operability and testing. He proposed systems (ECCS) needed to recover from restrict the number of individuals on the changes were made in response to an NRC request to upgrade the testing a pipe break in the pnmary system. SRC to nine. This " fixed number" requirements for s!! safety-related I Each combination requires at least one restriction causes two problems:(1) snubbers to ensure a higher degree of LPCI system to be operable. Since the When additional expertise is required, operability. The changes involve: p scenario described does not satisfy the either a current voting member must be' Clarifying the frequency for visual 8 rn n mum ECCS requirement it ,, replaced" temporarily or the more inspection, stating the requirements for represents a potential unreviewed safety expert individual must be relegated to a functional testing of snubbers which [ questionif the appropriate controls are non voting status; an !(2) when a visually appear inoperable, the inclusion not placed in the power sources vacar ey is created on the current SRC of a formula for the selection of L supporting the isolated 480 volt swing roster, a replacement must immediately representadte sample sizes, the a bus The proposed arnendment will be found. This proposed change would clarifying of the testing acceptance incorporate LCO's on the power sources provide additional flexibility, thereby criteria, and revising the method of supporting the isolated swing busses to relieving the above problems. Each new snubber listing to incorporate more prevent the potential for this scenario member chosen will still have to meet informadon. from occurnng The NRC staff has the qualification requirements stated in Basis forproposedno significant l l reviewed the Technical Specifications Technical Specification 612.2. hazards consideration determination:
- t proposed by the licensee in this Basis forproposedno significant The Commission has provided guidance b
cmendment and determined they are botards considemtion determination: concerning the application of these i acceptable. The proposed changes are administrative impros ements intended standards by providing certain b Bosis forproposed no significant to provide additional flexibility related examples (48 FR 14870) The examples t the number of individuals that of actions involving no significant g hozords considerotion derctmanation: hazards considerations include changes i The Commission has provided guidance comprise the 3RC. Their responsibilities that constitute additionallimitations or l corcerning the application of the are n t diminished and the changes will restrictions in the Technical standards m 10 CFR 50 92 by providing M physically affect any safety related certain examples (48 FR 14870). One of systems. The staff, therefore, proposes Specifications.*ne proposed changes these, Example (ii). involving no to conclude that the amendment to the revise sections of the Technical signiGcant hazards considerations is "A Technical Specifications would not:(1) Specifications related to hydraulic change that constitutes an additional involve a significant increase in the snubbers to clarify requirements and include additional testing. and limitation. restriction or control not probability or consequences of an [p presently included in the technical accident previously evaluated. (2) create incorporate both operability and testing ) speciacations: For exaraple, a more the possibihty of an accident of a type requirements for mechanical snubbers. stringent surs eillance requirement." The different from any previously evaluated, Since the requested changes upgrade the l requested change matches the example or (3) involve a significant reduction in a requirements for hydraulic snubbers and i and the staff. therefore, proposes to margin of safety. On this basis, the staff add requirements for mechanical i characterize it as involving no signficant has made an initial determination that snubbers, the staff proposes to determine that the application does not I hszards consideration. the proposed amendment is not Lkely to involve a significant hazards j LocalPublic Docement Room involve a significant hazards consideration. consideration. Location: Osterhout Free Library. LocalPublic Document Room LocalPublic Document Room R1ference Department. 71 South Location: Osterhout Free Library. Location:Penfield Library, State Franklin Street, Wilkes Barre. Reference Department,71 South University College of Oswego, Oswego. Pennsylvania 13701, Franklin Street Wilkes. Barre, New York. Attorney forlicensee: lay Silberg' Pennsylvania 18701. Attorney for licensee: Mr. Charles M. Esquire, Shaw, Pittman. Potts & Attorneyforlicensee: Jay Silberg. Pratt, Assistant General Counsel, Power Trowbridge,1800 M Street NW" Esquire Shaw,Pittman,Potts & At.thority of the State of New York, to Washington, D C. 20036. Trowbridge,1800 M Street NW., Columbus Circle, New York, New York NRCBranch Chief: A.Schwencer. Wa shington, D.C. 20036. 10019.
12158 Federal Register / Vol. 50 No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27. 1985 / Notices NRCBmnch Chief Domenic B. currently included in the Tehal De Commission has niede a prat==8 Vassa!!o. Specifications. determination that the amendnnent Power Authorit3 of the State of New Location Public Document Roost requests involve no significant hazarda j A-location: Penfield Library, State consideretian Under the Comadesion's FiI Patnc University College of Oswego, Oswego, regulatiurs la to CFR 5022. this ameans Pg P u New York. Oswego County, New York : that operation of the facihty in Attorneyforlicensee Mr. Charles M. sacrdance with the proposed Date ofcmendment redest; Pratt, Assistant General Counsel. Power amendment wot.ld not (1)levolve a December 21,1984, as supplemented Authority of the State of New York to, significant increase in the probability or February 19.1985. Columbus Circle. New York. New York Description of amendment request: 10019 consequences of an accident previously The proposed amendment would change NRCBmnch Chief Domenic B-evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of the Technical Specifica tions (TS) to VassaHo. a new or different Idnd of accident from incorporate Radiological Effluent any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Technical Specifications (RETS) tha t Power Authority of the State of New involve a significant reduction in a York, Dockat No. 50-333, James A. margin of safety. Clearly, the proposed would bnng the license into compliance FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, amendment does not charge the design with Appendix 1 of 10 CFR Part 50. The Oswego County, New York basis of the plant but, rather, corrects an proposed an endment would provide nrw Technical Specification sections Date ofomendment rmest January error to make the TS conform to the pertaining to the following Limiting 3a 1985. design basis. Therefore, the proposed amendment satisfies the three above-cond;tions for operation and .g[## I "b" stated criteria for no significant hazards suneillance requirements for p m se radioacta e hquid. gaseous and sohd
- 3 pg consideration.
- n Based on the fo~ regoing, the westes, total dose, and radiological p,n tr Pr a Conta o
environmental monitoring consisting of page 198 of Appendix A of the Technical Commission proposed to deleonine thaf a rnonitoring program, land use census, Specifications (TS). The isolation signals the proposed amendment does not cnd an interleboratory compan, son for two reactor wa ter sample line valves inv lve a significant hazards i program. The proposed amendment (drywell penetration X-41) would be considerabon. would also incorporate into the changed from "B, C D, E, and P' to "B foe /PublicDocumentRoom j Technical Specifications the bases that and C" locahon: Penfield Library, State 3 support the operation and surveillance ne purpose of this change is to University College of Oswego, Oswego, 3 requirements. In edition. sorne changes correct an error in Table 3.7-1 that was New York. would be made in administrative inadevertently introduced durmg the A ttorney for //censeer l&. Ch a rels M. I controls, specifically delaing with the initialissuance of 6e TS. Three Pratt. Assistant General Counsel, Power o process control program, the offsite dose additional isolation signals "O, E, and P., Authority of the State of New York.10 cziculab,on manual, and the radiological were incorrectly included under the Columbus Circle. New York. New York monitoring program. reactor water sample line entry in Table 1N p Basis forp:oposedno significant 3.7.1. This error was discovered during NRCBmnch Chief Domenic B. g borords cor' sideration determination' normal operation when the reactor V* * **ll' t water sample hoe isolation valves did y n t isolate on all signals listed in Table Power Authority of the State of New '8 ne rn t app c o of e York. Docket No. So ass, indian Point standards m 10 CFR 50 92 by providm8 D certtin examples (48 ER 14%0). One of as'isforpmposedno significant y the examples (ii) of actions not likely to hozords considerction determination: involve a significant hazards Signals B. C, D. E, and P effect closure of Date ofamendmentrequest May 3. 3 consideration relates to changes that vanous Group A isolation valves.The 1983. de constitute adational restrictions or Group A valves are located in process Description of ameridment request: O controls not presently included in the lines that communicate directly with the The amendment would revise and t r. Trchrucal Specifications. reactor vessel and penetrate the primary update Table 3 er-1 and Table 4.4-1 of by The Commission. in a revision to containment. Group A isolation the Technical Specification to reflect (1) pc Appendix 1.10 CFR Part 50, required functions include generation ofisolation The replacement of double disc St hcensees to improve and modify their signals for the following components: containment isolation value 850A with r:diological efduent systems in a
- 1. Main stream isolauon valves two single disc containment isolation asi minner that would keep releases of (Penetration X-7AAC.D).
valves 850A and 850C. (2) the tei tr.dioactive material to unrestricted
- 2. Main stream line drain isolation installation of check valve 8406 as an bC areas during normal operation as low as valves (Penetration X-4).
automatic containment isolation vah e. SP l
- 3. Reactor water sample line isolation (3) the automation of valves 55a 8a3, Te '
is re:sonably ach:evable. In complying valves (Penetration X-41). 958,959, and 1610. (4) the addition of L8C with this reqairement, it became
- 4. Condenser vacuum pump.
two autornatic containment valves, DW-Sei n:cessary to add additional restrictions The original plant design basis called AOV-1 and DW-AOV-2. for the hce and controls to the Technical for the reactor water sample line to demineralized water system.These lett Sp:cifications to assure compliance. Isolate on signals B and C only. Signals, modifications were made in response to the . This caused the addition of Technical D. E. and P were intended to effect position 11 E 4 2.3 of NUREC-0737 which def l Sp:cifications desenbed abos e.The closure of the mein stream isolation states that all non-essential systems be I staff proposes to determine that the valves and mein stream hne drain automatica!!y isolated by the CI5 l sppbcation does not involve a isolation valves only. Therefore, the containment isolation signal. full ; significant hazards consideretion since inclusion af the additional signals D,E. The orgenfrational changes requested 1# tha changes consutute additional and P in Ta ble 3.7-1 under drywell in the May 3,1983 submittal are berng Ou I restrictions and controls that are not penetration X-41 represents an error, handled as a s.parate action and has the
'Y I h Federal Register / Vol. 50 No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 1985 / Notices - 12199 l 4 ~ d received a separate Federal Register amendment to resolve the remaining probability or consequences of a r Notice (48 FR 52823). concerns. This amendment request, previously. analyzed acx;ident or may 'L Basis forproposedn3 significant dated December 3,19A4, is the licensee's reduce in some wey a safety margin, but r where the results of the change are hazards consideration etermina: ion:
- tesponse, The Comtr.ission has p vided guidance Basis forproposedno significant clearly within all acceptable criteria concerning the apphcationof these hazards consideration determination with respect to the system or component
[ standards by providing examples (48 FR The Commission has provided guidance specified in the Standard Review Plaa ) 14870). One of the examples of actions concerning the application of these (SRP 5.4.2.2), not likely to involve a significant standards by providing examples (48 FR The licensee indicates that a detaDed i hazards consideration relates to 14870). One of the examples (example analysis, performed by Westinghouse, of changes that constitute additional (ii)) of actions not likely to involve a similar units shows that extending the t, hmitations or restrictions in the significant hazards consideration relates cold leg tube plugging limit of 63% to the TechrAcal Specifications. The proposed to changes that constitute an additional regions above the first tube support f< changes revise Table 3 6-1, the list of limitation, restriction, or control not plate and up to, but not including, the t non. automatic containment isolation presently. included in the Technical sixth support plate does not significantly valves open continuously or Specifications. The proposed change, change the accident analysis. it,termittently for plant operation. and which revises Section 3.7 to define the Westinghouse has confirmed that this Table 4 4-1, the list of all containment Limiting Conditions for Operation of result conservatively applies to Indian isolation valves, to reflect modifications systems, subsystems, trains, Point 3. In addition. as stated in the '1 rnade in response to position ll.E 4 2.3 of components and devices supplied by an Safety Evaluation for Amendment No. NUREG-0737. Since the requested inoperable normal or emergency power 50, previous plugging limits for cold leg o changes upgrade the Technical source, falls into this category of pitted tubes were determined by the Specifications to reflect stricter a dditional limitations. Therefore, the previous corrosion rate so as to K requirements for containment isolation staff proposes to determine that the maintain the requisite minimum wall l valves, the staff proposes to determine application does not involve a thickness. Investigations made during O that this application does not involve a significant hazards consideration. the cycle 4 steam generator inspection significant hazards consideration. LocalPublic Document Room outage indicate that the corrosion rate LocalPubhc Document Room locction: White Plains Public Library, has 8ignificantly decreased.Therefore, location: White Plains Public Library, 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New the higher plugging limit would maintain h 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York New York 10601. the same minimum wall thickness. York 10601 Attorneyforhcensee Mr. Charles M. %e staff considers that this evidence Attorney for b.censee. Mr. Charles M. Pratt.10 Columbus Circle New York. mee a req men a gpamp;e M) j Pratt.10 Columbus Circle. New York, New York 10019 de ne t he New York 10019. NRCBmnch Chief: Steven A. Varga. does a q NRCBranch Chief Steven A.Varga. Power Authority of the State of New significant hazards consideration. i' Power Authority of the State of New York, Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point Loca/ Public Document Room York Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New location: White Plains Public Library, J. Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New York 100 Martine Avenue,Ygite Plains New Ymk Dote of amendment request: January York 10601. Attorney for licensee: Mr. Charles M. t Date of amendment request: 17,1985. t Pratt, to Columbus Circle. New York, 3 December 3,1964. Description of amendment request:
- l Description of amendment request:
This amendment would revise the New York 10019. h This amendment would revise Section Technical Specifications related to NRCBronch Chief: Steven A.Varga. 3.7 of the Technical Specifications to steam generator tube inservice Portland Genera 1 Electric Company, et define the 1.imiting Conditions for surveillance (Appendix A. Section 4.9 of al., Docket No. 50-344. Trojan Nuclear Operation of systems. subsystems, the operating license) to extend the trains. components and devices supplied region for which the tube plugging limit - PM, Columbia County, Omgon by an inoperable normal or emergency of 63% degradation due to pitting Date of amendment request: January pI l., power source. as provided by the applies. By letter dated November 9, 29,1965. Standard Technical Specifications. 19M. the staff issued Amendment No. 50 Description of amendment request By letter dated Apul10.1980, the staff granting an interim 63% plugging !!mit ne amendment request was submitted I-issued a generic letter clarifying the - for the region from the tubesheet to the in response to NRC Generic Letter 84-15 l' term OPERABLE and requesting the first subport plate for cold leg pitted (dated July 11984) which identified cold licensee to propose Technical tubes. The pending request would fast starts of diesel-generator seta as h, Specifications consistent with Model extend the region, for which the 63% contributing to premature diesel engine Technical Specifications. By Operating degradation due to pitting limit applies, degradation. In addition, excessive l d License Amendment No. 32. dated from the tubesheet to the second support diesel engine testing was also identified September 5,1980. we granted the plate for the remainder of Cycle 4. as contributing'to unnecessary wear, l e I licensee's amendment. requested by Basis forproposedno significant Consistent with the NRC request, the letter daled May 23,1980, implementing hazards consideration determination: amendment would reduce the frequency ~ h the Model Technical Specification The Commission has provided guidance of diesel. generator testing and allow the definition of OPERABIE concerning the application of these engine to be warmed up for moet testa Dunng a recent review it became , standards by providing certain before increasing speed. The test starta clear that Amendment No. 32 did not examples (48 FR 14870). An example from ambient conditions would be j 4 fully satisfy the intent of the April 10. (example (vi)) of an action likely to conducted sernbannually instead of 1980 generic letter. By letter dated involve no significant hazards monthly, consistent with the NRC [ October 22,1984. the staff requested that considerations is a change which either guidance. Monthly testing would be the licensee submit a license may result in some increase to the contmued. g I s
v g60 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 1985 / Notices The restriction that the 18-month predicted. Since the shifts were greater actions not likely to involve a testing be conducted during plant than predicted and the intermediate and Significant Hazard Consideration in the shutdown would be respoved since some lower shell vertical weld seam Federal Register (48 FR 14870). One of of the testing can be cdnducted while chemistries were estimated the revised the examples (ii) related to changes that operating. J limits curves proposed in this constitute additionallimitations, Finally, the time to shut dowrf the amendment request are based on the restrictions, or controls not presently plant in the event that twotif. site upper limits of the Regulatory Guide 1.99 included in the technical specifications. transmission lines are not available prediction curves. Specifically, the Use of the proposed new curves, since would be changed from four hours to six proposed amendment would: (1) Replace they place more stringent limits on hours. This is consistent with NRC the present Heatup Limits Curve. Figure operations, will result in lower stresses guidance contained in NRC Standard 3.4-2 with a new Heatup Limits Curve. to the Reactor Vessel during heatups Technical Specifications and consistent (2) replace the present Cooldown Limits and cooldowns. with other sections of the technical Curve Figue 3.4-3 with a new Cooldown Based on the above since the specifications that require a plant curve, and (3) replace the present proposed changes involve actions that shutdown. neutron fluence vs. Full Power Service conform to the referenced example in 48 Basis forproposedno significant Life. Figure B 3/4.4-1, with a new curve. FR 14870. we propose to determine that hazards consideration determination: Basis forproposedno significant this application for amendment involves The NRC staff has determined that hazards consideration determination: no significant hazards co'nsideration. excessive diesel-engine testing and cold The Commission has provided guidance Loca/ Public Document Room fast starts contnbute to premature concerning the application of the location: Salem Free Library,122 West ang'ine degradation and that an overall standards for a No Significant Hazards Broadway Salem. New Jersey 08079 improvement in rehabihty and determination by providing examples of Attorneyforlicensee: Conner and availability can be gained by performing actions not likely to involve a i Wetterhann. Suite 1050.1747 diesel generator starts for surveillance Significant Hazards Considerat. ion in the Pennsylvania Avenue.NW., testing using engine prelube and other Federal Register (48 FR 14870). One of Wa shington. D.C. 20006. manufacturer recommended procedures the examples (ii) relates to changes 9 at A'RCBronch Chief: Steven A. Varga. to reduce engine stress and wear. The constitute additional limitations, proposed amendment is consistent with restrictions, or controls not presently Public Service Dec'ric and Gas this objective and therefore should included in the technical specifica!;ons. Company, Docket No. 5n-311, Salem rzsult in enhanced reliability. Use of the proposed new curves, since. Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 2. The change allowing six hours to shut they place more stringent limits on Salem County, New Jersey down is minor. It is consistent with NRC opera, tion, will result in lower stresses to Date of amendment request January guidance and would allow more time to the Reactor Vessel during heatups and 11 1985' conduct an orderly shutdown.Therefore cooldowns. h,,c7iption of amendment request it appears that operation of the facihty Based on the above, since the The cycle 3 reload design for Salem Unit in accordance with the proposed proposed changes involve actions that 2 is based on a revised control rod emendment would not:(1) Involve a conform to the referenced example in 46 pattern which closely approximates the significant increase in the probability or FR 14870. we propose to determine that consequences oNin accident previously this application for amendment involves current Unit 1 control rod pattern. The avaluated, or (2) create the possibility of no significant hazards consideraticn. design change request to reidentify a new or different kind of accident, or Loca/ Public Document Room c ntroI banks is being imp!emented (3)involse a significant reduction in a location: Salem Free Library,112 West during cycle 2-3 refuehng outage, under margin of safety. Based on the foregoing. Boardway. Salem. New Jersey 08079 en a o is ed th ed rod the NRC staff proposes to determine Attorneyfor heensee: Conner and thst the proposed amendment does not Wetterhann. Suite 1050.1747 pattern are as follows:
- 1. Reduces the maximum hot channel involve a significant hazards Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
consideration. Wa shingtion. D.C. 20006. enthalpy rises factors during reactor LocalPublic Document Room NRCBronch Chief Steven A. Varga. maneuvys. location: Multnomah County Library,
- 2. Prondes a sigmficant increase in Public Service Dectric and Gas operational flexibility by allowing an Col SW. toth Avenue. Portland. Oregon.
Cornpany, Docket No. 50-272, Salem increase of the rod insertian limits. Attorneyforhcensee J.W. Durham. Senior Vice President. Portland General Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1 Therefore, to take advantage of these Electnc Company.121 SW. Salmon Salem County, New Jersey benefits. this amendment request would Street. Portland. Oregon 97204. Date of amendment request: October change the Power Dependent Insertion NRC Branch Chief. [ames R. Miller. 15.1984. Limit (PDIL) to allow a relaxation of the Description of amendment request: Unit 2 rod insertion requirements to Public Service Dectric and Gas The proposed amendment would match that of the current Unit t iimits. Company, Docket No. 50-311 Salem provide revised heatup and cooldown Basis forproposedno significant Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 2, curves developed from the Capsule T . haza:ds consideration determinations A Salem County, New Jersey analysis. Specifically, Technical Reload Safety Evaluation (RSE) for Date of amendment request: October Specifications Heatup and Cooldown cycle 3 hass been performed by 15.1984. Curves. Figures 3.4.3 and 3.4.3 would be Westinghouse and reviewed by Public Description of amendment request; replaced with revised figures. Service Dectric and Gas (PSE&C) to The anal) sis of the reactor vessel Basis forpmposedno significant . determine the impact of less restrictive material contained in surveillance hazards consideration determination (i.e deeper) rod insertion limits.The capsule T, the first capsule to be The Commission has provided guidance results of the Westinghouse RSE show removed for Salem Unit 2. showed that concerning the application of the that the proposed limits do not cause the the transition temperature for the plate standards for a No Significant Hazards previously acceptable safety limits for and weld material shifted more than determination by providing examples of any incident to be exceeded. PSE&C his
F ~. Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 1985 / 'Notsees %2161 s review this analysis and concurs with nature: finally, some material added by analysis Wrg on primarrie 4 the Westinghouse conclusions. ne recent amendmente has been secondary leak determination. ( PSEAC reviewed consisted of inadvertently replaced by out-dated
- 4. Delete Specification 3/4.11M CAS performing an independent reload safety wording in the two year old license STORAGE TANKS to eliminate an 3
evaluation for cxle 3 usirs in. house change which initiated Amendments 50 annecessary Curie Emit on the Waste ~ computer codes, and Jt resulted in the and 28. Ces Decay Tanks. determination that the current safety Basis forpmposedno significant Basisforproposedno signiffaxat * ~ analysis design bases continue to be hozonfs consideration determination: hozords consideration determination:. s met. The proposed changes are Compared to the specifications that they 3 The Commission has provided administrathe. In that, they either affect, each of the four items above may, guidance concerning the application of achieve consistency in the Technical in some way, slightly reduce a safety the standards for a No Significant specifications, add clarifications, or margin by virtue of either decreasing a a Hazards determination by providing correct errors in the recently issued sampling frequency or by deleting an examp!es of actions not likely to invohe Amendments 59 and 28. existing (albeit unnecessary) a Significant Hazards Consideration in The Commission has provided spec fication limit. However, operation 8 the Federal Regis tr (48 FR 14870). One guidance concerning the application of of the Salem facilities with the proposed of the examples (vi) relates to a change the standards for a No Significant changes in place would remain clearly which either may result in some Hazards determination by providin8 within all acceptable criteria specified increase to the probabibty or examples of actions not likely to involve in Standard Review Plan Sections 9.3.2 f consequences of a presiously-analyzed a Significant Hazards Consideration in and 11.5 with respect to the affected accident or may redLce in some way a the Federal Register (48 FR 14870). One systems and components. safety margin, but where the results of ef the example (i) relates to a purely f the change are clearly within all administrative change, for example the The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of acceptable enteria with respect to the correction of an error. Since this. the standards for a No Significant system or component specified in the proposed chaage conforms to this Standard Review Plan (SRP). As stated example, the Commission proposes to Hazards determination by providmg above, since the input parameters to the determine that the application for examples of actions not hkely to involve accident analyses are no less amendment does not involve a a Significant Hazards Consideration in conservatne than previuusly used significant hazards consideration. the Federal Register (4B R 14870). One values in the FSAR, the margins to lecoIPublic Document Room of the examplea (vi) relates to a change safety remain at least as conservative location: Salem Free Library.122 West which either may result in some with respect to the lim.ts gisen for all Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08T9. increase to the probability or da Avio@uahd anal > zed accidents m Chapter 15.0 of Attorneyfor heensee: Conner and e th SRP and for apprepriate sections of Wetterhann. Suite 1050.1747 accident or may reduce in some way a Chapter 4.3 of the SRP. Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., saf W W re h e d Based on the above evaluation we Wa shington. D C. 20006. the change are clearly within all i hae determined that the proposed NRCBrunch Chief: Steven A. Varga. epta e a wi re pec o e change m PDIL corresponds to example (vi) of guidance prouded by the Public Service Electric and Gas Standard Review Plan (SRP). Based on Company, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-the above discussion we have h8 0 an 311 Salem Nuclear Generating Station, determined that the four proposed ~ es pr os to deterEnine that this application for Unit Nos.1 and 2, Salem County, New changes to the Technical Specif. cations amendment involves no Significant jeney corresponds to example (vi) of guidance Hazards Consideration. Date ofamendment requests: provided by the Commission in Federal Locc/Public Document Room February 6,1985. Register 49 FR 14980, and the, staff locotion: Salem Free Libra y,122 West Description of amendment requestsr proposes to determine that this Broadway. Salem. New Jersey 08079. The amendments would make the application for amendment involves no Attorneyfor bcensee: Conner and following revisions to Technical Significant Hazards Consideration. Wetterhann. Suite 1050.1747 Specifications Sections 3.3 and 3.11 as Loco 1Public Document Room Pennsyhania Avenue. NW., found in previous Amendments 59 and location: Salem Free Library,122 West Wa shinrton. D C. 20006. 28 for Salem Units 1 and 2 respectively: Broadway, Salem. New jersey 00079. NRCBrcnch Chief: Steven A.Varga.
- 1. On Table 3.3-12. TABLE Attorneyforlicensee: Conner and Public Scru.ce Electn.c and Gas NOTATION 28 should be modified on Wetterhaan. Suite 1050.1747 Cornpe.s. Docket Nes. 50-272 and 50-Unit No.1 to base sampling tanalysis Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
requirements on containment fan coil Washington, D.C. 20006. 311. Sg e.n Nuclear Cencrating Station, Unit hus. I and 2. Salem County, New unit operability. NRCBronch Chief: Steven A.Vergs.
- 2. On Table 3.3.-12. TABLE IC"'Y NOTATION 28 should be modified on Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Date of amendment requests:
Unit No. 2 to allow for local monitor Docket No. 50-312, Rancho Seco February 8.1985. readout capabilities when control room Wuclear Generating Station, Sociamento Desc5ption of amendment requests: Ladication is inoperable, and base C**"'I'?*U*'*I* ne proposed amendment request would sampling / analysis requirements on Date of amendment requesti revise Salem Unit Nos.1 and 2 containment fan coll unit operability. December 28,1964. Te chnical Specifications to agree with 3 On Table 3.3-12. (Item 2.b) Description ofamendment request the attached corrected pages from Instrument R-37. CHEMICAI; WASTE nis submittal revises the request for Amendments 59 and 28 for Units 1 and 2 BASIN LINE DISCHARGE for Unit 2, amendment dated September 9.1982, respectively.The corrections are change ACTION., umber to ACTION 31 which was noticed in the Federal p edominantly typographical errors; and in the TABLE t'OTAT10N add new Register on November 22,1983 (48 FR several are editorial or clarifying in ACTION 31 which bases sampling / 52825). The submittal: (1) Deletes ~ g
121G2 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wedaesday, htarch 27, 1965 / Notices inspection requirements that were NRC Branch Chief)Inhn F. Stolz. the analysis assumes that the operator is completed during the 1983 refueling outage. (2) revises the Technical South Carolina Electric and Gas alerted to the event by the Specification paragrapQnumbers,.and Company. South Carolina Public Service overtemperature delta T reactor trip. (3) adds a table to designate the selected Authority. Docket No. 50-395. Virgil C. The analysis indicates that the operator Summer Nuclear Station. Unit 1 bas 43.2 minutes after the trip to special interest peripheral tgbesihat are terminate the dilution.De decrease in to be eddy current tested. Fairfield Count}. South Carolina T. will result in an insignif. ant delay in Basis forpmposedno significant Dates of amendment request: August receiving the overtemperature delta-T harceds consideration determination: 24 and November 14.1984. trip and therefore the response time will The Commission has provided guidance Description of amendment request not be significantly decreased.The concerning the application of the The amendment would change time delay is small because the rate of standards for a no significant hazards constant T. in the overtemperature increase in T average is very slow for a dete mination by providing certain delta-T setpoint equation from 33 boron dilution event resulting in very examples (48 FR 14870). One of the seconds to 28 seconds and would little dynamic compensation of the examples (ii) of actions not likely to change the reactor trip setpoint for the setpoint. The operator response time invohe a significant hazards steam generator water levellow low will still be approximately 43 minutes: consideration relates to changes that signal. Currently, this setpoint is hnear more than ample time for the operator to constitute additional restnctions or from 12% to 54 9% of span for 30% to recognize and terminate the event. controls not presently included in the 100% of rated thermal power (RTP). nis Protection for the loss ofload accident Technical Specifications. would be changed to 12% to 30% of span is provided by the overtemperature The September 9.1982. application for 30% to 100% of RTP. Also, the delta T trip when pressurizer pressure proposed Once Through Steam allowable value associated with the trip controlis assumed to fur ction and by Generator (OTSC) Auxilia y Feedwater setpomt is being changed a the high pressurizer pressure trip when Header surveillances that were to be corresponding amount. performed during the Rancho Seco 1983 Basis forproposedno significant pressurizer pressure control is assumed rzfueling outage. These inspections were hazards considemtwn determination: not to function. FSAR Section 15.2.7 completed durmg the 1983 refuelmg Reducing the value of T. from 33 documents the results of analyses for outzge. Thc refore, the December 28. seconds to 28 seconds will slow down each of these assumptions considering 1984. revision deleted these the response to the T average dynamic both beginning of life and end oflife requirements from the proposed compensation of the overtemperature conditions. For the beginning of life case Techmcal Specifications and did not delta T setpomt. The dynamic T-average (small negative moderator temperature change the proposed Technical term m the overtemperature delta T coefficient) with pressurizer pressure Specification surveillances to be equation compensates for inherent control, the decrease in T. results in a conducted subsequent to the 1983 instrument response times and piping sma 1 delay m. the overtemperature h f[,I"{ R of app!ighdy low refueling outage. The paragraph transport lags between the core and the numbers were changed because the temperature sensors in the manifolds. y original numbers had already been used This reduction in T. lowers the lead / lag which is still well above the acceptance in a Technical Specification revision ratio by 15% resulting in a comparable criteria of 1.30 (FSAR Figure 15.2-19). Issued after September 9.1982. The reduction in the anticipatory response of For the end oflife case (large negative September 9.1982. submittal specified the T-average compensation of the moderator temperature coefficient) with that specialinterest peripheral tubes setpoint. pressurizer pressure control the would be eddy current inQected. The The seven safety analyses correlated decrease in T. again results in a small December 28.1984, submittal added a with the overtemperature delta T trip delay in the overtemperature delta-T table to designate which tubes are the have been reviewed for the effect of the trip. howevt. DNBR does not decrease special interest peripheral tubes. nus, new T. and found to still be acceptable. below its initial value. but increases (see I the December 28.1984. submittal revises Four of the safety analyses are more FSAR Figure 15.2-21). The increase in l the proposed Technical Specification conservative with this change. The DNBR is due to the decrease in nuclear change to:(1) Delete a surveillance effect of the decrease in T. on the three power from the negative moderator ciready completed. (2) administatively remaining analyses that take credit for temperature coefficient and the increase change paragraph numbers. and (3) add the overtemperature delta T trip is in pressunzer pressure. an additional restriction not presently dicussed below for each transient. The above discussion demonstrate included in the Technical Specifications. Protection for the rod withdrawal at that the effect of the decrease in T. on Therefore since the application for power accident is provided by the the protection provided by the amendments consists of an additional overtemperature delta T trip for low overtempcature delta T reactor trip is restriction not presently included in the reactivity insertion rates and by the high minimal and that the safety ana!ysis Technical Specifications, the neutron flux trip for high reactivity design basis will continue to be met. Commission's previous proposed insertion rates (FSAR Figure 15.2.8).The ne Commission has provided certain determination. that the application for decrease in T. will cause the point at examples (48 FR 14870) of actions likely amendment does not involve ~a which the two segments of the curve in to involve no significant hazards significant hazards consideration. Figure 15.2.8 meet to be at a slightly considerations. One of the examples (vi) remains unchanged. Iower reactivity insertion rate. The high relates to a change which may reduce in LocalPublicDocumentRoom
- neutron flux portion of the curve some way a safety margin. but where location: Sacramento City County remains above the hmiting departure the resutis of the change are clearly I.ibr:ry. 828 I Street. Sacramento, from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) of within all acceptable criteria with Cahfornia.
1.30. respect to the system specified in the Attorneyforlicensee: David S. Uncontrolled boron dilution events Standard Review Plan. Kaplan. Sacramento Municipal Utility require operator action to recognize and The change to time constant T. is District. 6201 S Street: P.O. Box 15830. terminate the uncontrolled dilution. For similar to this example. Accordingly, the Sacramento. California 95813. an uncontrolled boron dilution at power, Commission proposes to determine that O
in '{ ~ U, Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 1985 / Notices ' N } } this change does not involve significant Southern California Edison Compa'ay, take on emergency loads and then run r. Docket No. 50-206, San Onofr N Niear for 5 minutes. Technical Specifications s
- 8 herards considerations.
The basis function gf the reactor Generating Station. Unit No.1.6au 4tB.1 and 4.4J.2 currently specify that protection circuits as40ciated pth low Diego County, Califoenia the monthly surveillance and refueling interval diesel generator test start aba!! steam generator water level is.1o Date of amendment request February be from " ambient" conditions. The preserve the steam generator heat sink 14.1985. proposed change would specify that for removal of long term residual heat. Decriptico of amendment request these starta shall be from " standby" i Therefore, the low-low steam generator This amendment would approve conditions. The licensee stated that y wster lesel trip is provided for each changes to the Technical Specifications " ambient" is considered misleading for i steam generator to ensure that sufficient regardmg testing of the emergency a diesel generator system that is initial thermal capacity is available in diesel generators.The proposed changes normally maintained above ambient j the steam generator at the start of the would. (1) limit diesel engirie loading to temperature, transient due tc the loss of normal 4500 kW plus or minus 5% for engine The bcensee has made a no feedwater accident. testing and emergency service significant hazards consideration requirements. (2) eliminate fast engine determination pursuant to lo CFR 50 9. The loss of normal feedwater accident starts from the monthly surveillance The licensee stated that the proposed analysis was reviewed for the effect of testing, but retain the refuelinginterval changes will ensure that loading of the the change in the low low steam fast start test which simulates design diesel generators for monthly generator water level tnp from 54 9% to basis emergency power requirements, surveillance tests and refueling interval b 30% of span at 100% rated thermal (3) delete the requirement to run the tests is realistJc and not excessive, and power. lt was found that the original diesel generctors for 60 minutes at 4422 unnecessary fast test starta are avoided. accident analysis assumed a 0% of span kW load during the refueling interval nese changes will minimize inp settmg Therefore.even assuming test (TS 4 4.F.2(d)) and (4) specify that mechardcal stress and wear of the 7.. worst case instrument uncertainties. the the monthly surveillance and refueling engine components and therefore 30% of span tnp setpom, t provides 5.2 M mis m im " standby prolong engine life.ne licensee further g feet more thermal capacity than that conditions" rather than "a ;bient stated that the proposed change will not assumed in the safety analysis. conditions", 8ignificantly impact the effectiveness of The Commission has provided certain Bosis forproposedno significont surveillance testing and refueling examples (48 FR 14870) of actions hkely Aczords consideration determinotion: interval testing. nor willit reduce the n to iny oh e no significant hazards The NRC staffs safety evaluation considerations. The request invoh ed in "Transamerica Delaval. Inc. (TDI) Diesel frequencies of any of these tests.nor a j this case does not match any of those Engine Reliability and Operability-San impact the current availabdity of the o I examples Howeser the staff has Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Unit diesel generators in all modes of plant ] resiewed the licensee's request for the 1." dated November 19.1984 requested operation. In light of these considerations, the licensee concluded abose amendment and has determined that the licensee, among other items, i that should this request be implerr.ented. propose Technical Specification changes that the proposed changes will enhance [ it will not. (1)!nvolve a significant to accomplish the following: Engine load plant safety. Thus, the proposed amendment will not involve a significant t increase in the probability or shall not exceed 4500 kW plus or minus increase in the probabihty or T I consequences of an accident presiously 5% for engine testing and emergency consequences of an accident previously f evaluated because the lose of normal service requirements. and monthly evaluated because the changes are feedwater accident is not made more surveillance testing will not include designed to prolong the diesel engine life b. probable and the accident analysis " fast starts." but rather " slow starts." and will not affect the frequency of design basis continues to be met, or (2) The refueling interval " fast start" test engine tests nor impact the availability create the possibility of a new or which simulates design basis service of the dieselgenerators.The proposed 1 different kind of accident from any requirements should be retained. changes will not create the possibility of accident previously evaluated because Generic Letter 64-15. " Proposed Staff a new or different kind of accident from the trip setpoint setting is still covered Actions to lmprove and Maintain Diesel any accident previously evaluated i by the origmal accident analysis. Also. .Cenerator Reliabihty." dated July 2. because the changes will not impact the it will not (31insohe a significant 1984. also discusses the reduction in
- current availability of the diesel
{' reduction in a margin of safety because number of cold fast start surveillance generators in all modes of plant h a steam generator heat sink greater than tests for diesel generators. Operation.The proposed changes also Items (1) and (2). discussed above. do not involve a significant reduction in l that assumed in the original accident were proposed by the licensee to meet I analy sis will continue to exist. the Technical Specification changes a margin of safety because the changes are designed to prolong engine life, wdl Accordmgly, the Commission proposes requested by the staff. not sigmficantly impact the to determine that this change doe not The licensee also proposed two effectiveness of testing. wdl not reduce involve significant hazards additional changes to the Technical considerations. Specifications (Items 3 and 4. above).TS the frequency of the test norimpact the 4 4.F.2(d) currently requires that the availability of the diesel generators. ~, locat o. Fairf e d Coun 1 br ry' diesel generator run for 60 minutes at The staff has reviewed the licensee a 4422 kW load as part of the test that significant hazards consideration innsboro uh to ina 29 80-simulates safety miection demand determination and based on this Attorneyforlicensee: Randolph R. concurrent with loss of offsite power. review the staff has made a proposed ( j Mahan. South Carolina Electric and Gas The licensee has proposed to delete.his determination that the application for Company, p.O. box 764. Columbia. Technical Specification and has stated amendment involves no significant j p South Carolina 29218. that it is considered superfluous in view hazards consideration. NRCBronch Chiefe Elinor G. of TS 4.4.F.2(b) which verifies the LocoIPubhc Document Room capability of the diesel to automatically location: San Clemente Public Library. Adensam.
..A.. .N D 12164 Federal Register / Vol 50. No. 59 / Wednesday March 27, 1985 / Nations 242 Avenida Del Mar. San Clemente. Administrative Controla and Qaality can be used to Sood the reactae care. Cahfornia 92672. Assurance for the Operational Mase of sprmy the drywell and suppresseon Attorneyforlicensee:Chartes R. Nuclear Power Plants" which is chambar.ce retumed to the suppre Kocher. Assistant Cenerel Counseli endorsed by SRP Chapter 17.2. The chamber of the ad}acant unit.in thia James Beoletto. Esquire. Southern.~ proposed changes are thus encompassed way decay heat and residual haat can Cahfornia Edison Company. Post Office by example (vi) of the Commission's be removed from the reactar coes and r Box C90. Rosemead. Californfa 91770L guidance. . prirnary containment of the ad acant i NRC Bmnch Chief: John A.Zwohnski. Since the application for amendment unit on a long term basia. involves proposed changes that a e ne operability requirements for, ~~ T nnissee Valley Authority. Docket encompassed by the criteria or an oosstie RHR cooling capability require. Nos. 50-259. 50-260 and 50-296. Browns example f r which no significant during certain maintenance or Fcrry Nuclear Plant. Units 1. 2 and 3. hazards consideration exists. the staff modification activities in one unit, that Umtstone County, Alabama has made a proposed determination that other unita be shutdown (i.e if Unit 2 Date of amendment request: the application involves no significant RHR systems are taken out of service. December 13.1984. hazards consideration. Units 1 and 3 must be shutdown within Description of cmendment request: Loco!Public Document Room 10 days). Deletion of the Technical na emendment would modify location: Athens Public 1.ibrary. South Specifications will ermit adjacent units P paragraph 6.2.B.4 of the Appendix A and Forrest. Athens. Alabama 35611. to continue operating during RHR Technical Specifications to: Attorneyforlicensee H.S. Sanger ]r system m dification and maintenance (1) Delete a requirement that Esquire General Counsel. Tennessee activities. unreviewed safety questions be Valley Authority.400 Commerce riviewed by the Plant Operations Avenue. E 11B 33C. Knoxville. Basis forpipposedno significant Rev:ew Committee (PORC). Tennessee 37902. hozords coasidemtion determinotwn: (Unreviewed safety questions NRC Bmnch Chief: Domenic B. The Commission has provided guidance determinations would still be reviewed Vassallo. for the application of criteria for no by the Nuclear Safety Review Board.) significant hazards consideration (2) Change the requirement that Tennessee Valley Authority. Docket determination by providmg examples of Nos. 50-259. 50-260 and 50-296, Browns amendments that are considered not Radiological Emergency Plan procedures and Industrial Security Program Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1. 2 and 3 likely to involve significant hazards procedures be reviewed annually by the Umestone County. Alabama considerations (48 FR 14870).These PORC. (The hcensee proposes that the Date of amendment request: February examples include:"(vi) A thange which PORC review each procedure once and 25.1985. either may result in some increase to the subsequently review only changes to Description of amendment regueste probability or consequences of a He amendments would delete previously. analyzed accident or reduce precedures ) (3) Delete a requirement that tne paragraphs 3.5.B.11 through 3.5.B.13 and in some way a safety margin. but where PORC review the adequacy of employee 4.5.B.11 through 4.5.B.13 of the Appendix the results of the change are clearly' training programs and recommend A Technical Specifications. These within all acceptable criteria with changes. (Training programs will paragraphs specify limiting conditions respect to the system or component continue to be audited annually by the for operation and surveillance specified in the Standard Review Plan Nuclear Safety Review Board.) requirements associated with the (SRP): For example, a change resulting Basis forpropssedno significant residual heat removal (RHR) system from the application of a small hozords consideration determination crossties between adjacent reactor refinement of a previously.used The Commission has provided guidance units. These crossties provide for certam. calculational model or design method." for the application of critena for no RHR pumps and heat exchangers in ne proposed changes may reduce the significant hazards consideration each umt to serve as backups for those redundancy available to the RHR determination by providing examples of in an adjacent unit for long term amzndments that are considered not shutdown cooling and permit fluid system and may thueby increase the likely to involve significant hazards makeup from the ad scent unit. probability or consequences of considerations (48 FR 14870). These By proper valve a ignment, the accidents which are mitigated by the examples include:"(vi)- A change network created by the RHR crossties
- RHR system.However, no credit was which either may result in some permits the B (or DJ RHR pumps on Unit given for the RHR crosstie feature in the increase to the probability or 1 to circulate Unit 2 suppression pool or facilities
- licensing basis (Final Safety consequences of a previous.analyed reactor vessel water through the B (or D) Analysis Report (FSAR) Sectisn 4.8].
accident or reduce in some way a safety heat exchangers on Unit t in the event and, without the feature the RHR system m:rgin. but where the results of the that the Unit 2 RHR pumpg are will still meet the redundancy chtnge are clearly within all acceptable unavailable. The crositie network is requirements of the acceptance criteria criteria with respect to the system or sized for a minimum flow of 5.000 gpm of SRP Section 5.4.7. " Residual Heat component specified in the Standard which will achieve about 91% of full Removal System."De proposed Review Plan (SRP): For example, a flow heat transfer capability of the RHR changes are thus encompassed by change resulting from the application of heat exchangers.In a hke fashion the A example (vi) of the Commission's s a small refinement of a previously-used (or C) RHR pumps on Unit 2 can be used guidance. ' czlculational model or design method." to circulate Unit 1 suppression pool or Since the application for amendments The proposed changes will reduce the reacto* vessel water through the A (or involve proposed char.ges that are sxttnd of management overview of C) heat exchangers on Unit 2.The B (or encompassed by an example for which certain safety-related activities and may D) RHR pumps on Unit 2 and the A (or no significant hazards consideration thereby reduce a safety margin. C) RHR pumps on Unit 3 can be exists the staff has made a proposed How ever, the revised requirements similarly utihzed. Suppression pool determination that the application would be consistent with ANSI / water which has been circulated through involves no significant hazards ANS 3.2. "American National Standard, the RHR heat exchangers on one unit consideration.
f"' F s ~ 1 l Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 1985 / Notices $3185 Locc/Pcbhc Document Room section would add a requirement for the plant to protect againt the affects of location: Athens Public Library South administrative procedures to limit the a rupture of the steam supply line to the and Forrest. Athens, Alabama 35611. working hours of facility staff who auxiliary feed pump turbines.Under the A ttorney for licensee: H. S. Sanger. ]r., perform safety related functions.ne guidance existing at the time, the line ~ Esquire, GeneraPCounsel, Tennessee procedures would limt the amount of was classified as a high-energy hna. Valley Authoritd400 Comr' erce overtime worked by the facility staff. ' Subsequently, a 5tandard Review Plan n A5 enue. E 11B 33C, Knoxfille, such as senior teactor operators, reactor and Branch Technical Position were. operators, auxiliary orperators, health published which would permit Tennessee 37902. NRCBmnch Chief Domenic B. physicists, andkey maintenance application of moderate-energy critaria personnel,in ac' ordance with guidelines to high-energy lincs which are used ~ Wssallo. c included with the new Technical infrequently, not more than 2% of the ,l The Toledo Edison Compsey and The Specification section. De proposed plant operating time. Evaluation under ?., Cleveland Electric Illuminating. amendment request was submitted in the less stringent criteria would not k response to NUREG-0737. Item I.A.1.3.1. require the pressure interlocks for ss hu.I at Pow St o,' L t o.1. and Genenc Letter 82-12. protection and would permit their i' Ott**
- Co""D
- Ohi*
Basis forproposed no sign /ficant deletion. Elimination of these interlocks { Date of cmendment request: hazards consideration determination: willimprove reliability oi the auxiliary l, September 17.1984. The Commission has provided guidance f dwater system. Desenprion of cmendment request-concerning the application of the He Commission has provided y The proposed amendment would add a standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing guidance concerning the application of requirement to the Admmistrative certain examples (48 FR 14870). The the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by h Controls Section of the Appendtx A examples of actions involving no providing certain examples (48 FR ?; Technical Specifications to report, on a significant hazards consideration 14870). An example of an amendment a monthly basis. all cha!!enges to the include actions which involve a change not likely to involve a significant Pressurizer power operated relief valve that constitutes an additionallimitation, hazards consideration is (example (vi]} y (PORV) and Pressurizer code safety restriction or control not presently a change which may result in some valves. The amendment request is included in the Technical Specifications. increase to the probability or uf submitted in response to a request from The proposed change matches this consequences of a preiously analyzed the NRC. example since limitations on working accident or reduce in some way a safety yf Basis forproposedno significant hours are not covered in the current margin but where the results of the tq hazards consideration determination: Technical Specifications.This change are clearly within all acceptable [ The Commission has provided guidance additional requirement would enhance criteria with respect to the system or concernmg the application of the safe plant operation by limiting overtime. component specified in the Standard standards in 10 CFR 50 92 by providing worked by key personnel so that the Review Plan. certain examples (48 FR 14870). The potential for human error caused by exampfe;eposed change matches this %e r examples of actions involving no fatigue can be reduced. Therefore, the therefore, the staff proposes to significant hazards consideration staff proposes to determine that the determine that the application does not , include actions which involve a change application does not involve a inv !ve a sigificant bazards that constitutes an additional hmitation, significant hazards consideration. c nsideration. q' restriction or control not presently LocalPublic Document Room LocalPubhcDocumentRoom. included in the Technical Specifications. location: University of Teledo Library. The proposed change matches this Documents Department 2801 Bancroft /{a Un rs o o h P, 2 B example since the above reporting Avenue. Toledo. Ohio 43606. Avenue. Toledo. Ohio 43606. g'. requirement is not presently included in Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald the Technical Specifications. Therefore, Charnoff, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts. Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald d the staff proposes to determine that the and Trowbridge.1800 M Street, NW., Charnoff,Esq.,Shaw.Pittman Potts and application does not involve a Wa shington, D.C. 20036. Trowbridge,1800 M Street. NW., significant hazards consideration. NBCBranch Chief: John F. Stolz. Washington, D.C. 20036. H b LocalPubli NRCBranch Chief:lohn F.Stoit. location: Um. c Document Room %e Toledo Edison Company and he n versity of Toledo 1.ibrary, Cleveland Electric Illuminating %e Toledo Edison Company and he p Documents Department. 2801 Bancroft Company, Docket No. 50-346, Davis. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Avenue. Toledo Ohio 43606. Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No.1, Company, Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Ottawa County, Ohio Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, Cha rnoff. Esq.. Shaw. Pittman, Potts-Ottawa County, Ohio 1 and Trowbridge.1800 M Street, NW., Date of amendment request: Washington. D.C. 20036. November 5.1984. Date of amendment request: NBC Brcach Chief:lohn F. Stolz. Description of amendment nquest: December 16.1984. 1 The proposed amendment would change . Description of amendment request: The Toledo Edison Company and %e the Davis.Besse Appendix ATechnical The* proposed amendment would add Cleveland Electric Illummating Specification Surveillance Requirement the title of " Nuclear Training Manager'* p Company Docket No. 50-346, Davis-4.7.1.2.d by deleting the requirement fer to Technical Specification Section 6.4.r. Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, the Auxiliary Feed Pump Turbine Inlet This Section currently does not indicate Ottawa County, Ohio Steam Pressure Interlocks to be the position title of the individual Date of amendment request: October demonstrated operable. This change. in responsible for the direction of the .8.1984. effect, would permit the deletion of retraining and replacement training Description of amendment request-these interlocks from the system. Program for facility staff. ne proposed amendment would add a Basis forproposedno significant Basisforproposedno significant new section (Section 6.2.3) to the facility hazards consideration determination: hazards consideration determination: Technical Specifications.The new The pressure interlocks were installed in %e Commission has provided guidance = m
.'s 12166 Federal Register / Vol. 50 No. 59 / Wednesday, Mardt 2f.1985 / Noticas concerning the application of the to the licensee model Techriscal Specification Figures s.2-1 and s.2,2 to standards m 10 CFR 50.92 by providing Specificatior a to incorporate these produce more generic Techral certain examples (48 FR 14870). De regulation changes. %e licensee has Specification organizational figures. examples of actions not likely to involve now proposed the changes in Technical without reducing commitments and a significant hazards co(sideration Specifications to comply with the without conflict to the organisational include actions related to a purely-regulations. For these reasons, the description in Sect on E0 of the Tech. cdministratise change to the-Technical Commission proposes to determine that Specs. The reviand charta do not Specifications such as a chaige to the amendment involves no sagruBcant represent a change in reportas achiese consistency throughout the hazards consideratiork relationships; a change in ~ Technical Specifications, correcting an Loco /Public Document Room responsibilities: or a change la error, or a change in nomenclature. ne location: University of Toledo Ubrary. commitments. %e organization remains proposed change matches this example Documents Department. 2801 Bancroft essentia!!y as previously submitted and since the addition of the position title Avenue. Toledo, Ohio 43606. approved. Based on the foregring. the only remed:es the previous emission in Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald requested amendment does not present the Technical Specifications and in no Charnoff. Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts. a significant hazard. w:y effects the conduct or effectiveness and Trowbridge,1800 M Street. NW.- LocalPublic Document Room of the training program itself. Therefore. Washington. D.C. 20036. locations: Fulton City Ubrary,700 the staff proposes to determine that the NRCBronc/, Chief: John F.Stolz. Market Street. Fulton, Missouri 85251 application does not involve a Union Electric Company, Docket 50-4s3, and the Olin Ubrary of Washington significant hazards consideration. Callaway Plant. Unit No.1, Callaway University.Skinker and undell Locc/Pubhc Document Room ., Missouri Boulev ards, St. Louis, Missouri 63130. location Unisersity of Toledo Library. Attorney forlicensee: Gerald Documents Department. 2801 Bancroft Date of amendment reg sest January Chamoff. Esq., Shaw, Pittman. Potts & Avenue. Toledo. Ohio 43606. 10.1985. Trowbridge.1800 M Street NW., Attorney for hcensee: Gerald Description of amendment request: Washington. D.C. 20036. Charnoff. Esq. Shaw, Pittman Potts. De purpose of the proposed NRC Branch Chief-B. J. Youngblood. and Trowbridae.1800 M Street, NW., amendment request is to revise Washington. D.C. 20038. Technical Specification Figures 6.2-1 Union Electric Company. Docket No. 50-NRC Branch Chief: John F. Stolz. and 8.2-2 to include modified 483. Callaway Plant Unit _1, Callaway organizational charts in the County, Missouri Thz Toledo Edison Company and %s Administrative Technical Specifications. Date of amendment request-January Clivsland Electric Illuminating. The proposed change reduces tb detail 21 1985., Compan), Docket No. 50-348. Davis-in the Figures and results in more Bisse Nuclear Power Station Unit No.1 De8cription of amendment request: generic Technical Specification Ott:wa County, Ohio organizational charts, without reducing The purpose of the proposed Date of amendment request: commitments and without conflict to the amendment request is to revise the Decsmber 16,1984. organization 6s described.nTechnical surveillance requirements given in Description of amendment request: Specification Section 6.0.This request to Technical Specification Table 4.5-1 Ln The amendment would modify the reduce the amount of detailin the rder to comply with the following staff Technical Specifications to incorporate organizational charts does not represent requirements. revisions to reportmg requ:rements m ' a change in reporting relationships; a (a) Independent.on-line testing of the r:sponse to Generic letter 8343 to change in responsibilities; or a change in Undervoltage and Shunt Trip comply with 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. commitments. Positions deleted from the Attachments on the reactor trip breakers Changes are made m Defmitions. Technical Specification charts are still per item 4.5.1 of Generic Letter 81-28; and Instrumentation. Reactor Coolant described in the Figures and text of System, Plant Systems and Chapter 13 of the FmalSafety Analysis (b) Periodic testing of the Administrative Controls Sections of the Report. Undervoltage and Shunt Trip Appendix A Technical Specifications. Basisforproposedno significant Attachments on the bypass breakers. Basisforproposed no significant hozords considention determination: with test intervals as defined by the hazards consideration determination: The licensee. by letter dated January 10. staff. The Commission has provided guidance 1985, stated that the proposed change The addition of the above surveillance concerning the application of the does not:(1)Invohe a significant requirements results in greater standards for making a no significant increase in the probability or confidence that the respective hazards consideration determination by consequences of an accident or other Undervoltage and Shunt Trip providmg certain examples (48 FR adverse condition over previous Attachments will perform as designed. j 14870). The example which the proposed evaluations; or (2) create the possibility Basis forproposedno significant amendment fits is:"(vii) A change to of a new or different kind of accident or hazards consideration determination make a license conform to changes in condition over previous evaluations; or The licensee, by letter dated January 29. the regulations. where the license (3) involve a significant reduction in a 1985, stated that the proposed change change results in very minor changes to margin of safety. The Commission has does not:(1) Involve a significant facihty operations clearly m keeping provided guidance concerning the increase in the probability or with the regulations." The Commission application of the Standards in to CFR consequences of an accident or other . revised 10 CFR 5012 and added 10 CFR 50.92 by providmg certain examples (48 adverse condition over previous 5033. both to become effective January FR 14870). One of the examples of evaluations; or (2) create the possibility 1.1984. These regulations revised the actions involving no significant hazards of a new or different kind of accident or immediate notification requirements for consideration relates to a purely condition over previous evaluations; or operating nuclear power reactors and administrative change to Technical (3) involve a significant reduction in a revised the Licensee Event Report Specifications.This amendment request margin of safety. The Commission has System. The Commission then provided reduces the detailin Technical provided guidance concerning the.
~ Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 1985 / Notices 12147 application of the Standards in 10 CFR The Commission has provided control room and the central alarm 50.92 by providing certain examples (48 standards for detsrmining whether a station. FR 14870). This amendment request is significant hacds consideration exista The licensee has determined and the s:milar to the egample of an act>on (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed involving no sigpificant hazards amendment to an operating license for a NRC staff agrees that these a have little safety significance an that. consideration which-rela'tes to a change facility involves no significant hazards that constitutes an (dditional limitation, consideration if operation of the facility the proposed amendment will not sker restriction or control not presently in accordance with the proposed any of the accident analysea. included in the Technical Specifications. amendment would not:(1) Involve a Accordingly, the Commission This amendment request involves the significant increase in the probability or proposes to determine that the proposed addition of two surveillance consequences of an accident previously changes,to the Technical Specifications requirements, as requested by the staff. evaluated:(2) create the possibility of a involve no,significant hazards which result in greater confidence that new or different kind of accident from considerations. the respective Undersoltage and Shunt an accident p eviously evaluated; or (3) loco /Public Document Room Trip Attachments will perform as involve a significant reduction in a location: Richland City Ubrary. Swift designed. Based on the foregoing. the margin of safety. Subsequent to his and Northgate Streets. Richland, requested amendment does not present initial (December '0,1984) reouest, the Washington. a significant hazard. li:ensee has determined that the Attorneyforlicensee: Nicholas LocalPublic Document Room requested amendment per 10 CFR 50.92 Reynolds Esquire, Bishop. Cook, locctions: Fulton City Library,709 does not: Liberman. Purcell and Reynolds.1200 h1arket Street. Fulton, hiissouri 65251 (1) Involve a significant increase in Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington. and Olm Library of Washington the probab!! ty or consequences of an D.C.20036. accident previously evaluated because NRCBronch Chief: A.Schwencer. l' Bo e at.St uis tis ou 130. the admmistrative controls serve the g;,c,,l&tric Pmr Company, Attomeyforlicensee: Gerald same funcuon as b mechamcal Charnoff. Esq., Shaw Pittman. Potts & Docket No. 50-268, Point Beach Nuclear interl ck; namely, to ensure conta.mment Plant, Unit No.1. Town of Two Creeks, Trowbridge,1800 h1 Street NW., mugW u mamtad, or i Washington. D C. 20036. Manitowoc County, Wisconsin NRC Bronch Chief. B 1. Youngblood. (2) Create the poss.. ty of a new or different kind of accident from any Date of amendment request: January i i Washington Public Power Supply accident previously evaluated also 11.1985. System. Docket No. 50-397, WNP-2, because the administrative controls Description of amendment request oy Richland, Washington serve the same function as the The amendment would modify the ll Dates of amendment request mechanicalinterlock so there is no new license to delete conditions imposed by i' Decernber 20.1984 and January 31,1985. or different kind of accident scenario; or the Commission's Confirmatory Order Description of amendment request (3) Involve a significant reduction in a for hfodification of Ucense dated .t, Currently the WNp-2 Technical margin of safety because the November 30,1979 and Order Modifying p' Specification requires at least one requirement for leak tightness remaina Confirmatory Order dated January 3. i containment air lock door to be closed unchanged. 1980.De conditions of those Orders at all times during plant operation and Based on st'aff review of the proposed which are currently in effect are:. locked closed within 24 hours if the changes, we find that there exists
- 1. Primary coolant activity for Point
{ other door becomes inoperable. The reasonable assurance that containment Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 will be Specification is silent with respect to the integrity will not be violated whenever limited in accordance with the mterlock mechanism that assures that the interlock mechanism or one air lock provisions of Sections 3.4.8 and 4.4.8 of {, only one air lock door can be open at door becomes inoperable provided the Standard Technical Specifications any one time. proposed administrative controls are for Westinghouse Pressurized Water The preposed amendment t Operating 1.icense NpF-21 would revise instigated. The proposed administrative Reactors. Revision 2. July 1979 rather controls include. than Technical Specification 15.3.1.C. the WNp-2 Techmcal Specifications t ,g
- 1. Ass gnment of a dedicated
- 2. Clase surveillance of primary-to-individual to assure that both air lock secondary leakage will be continued nt I ek m chanis r he pr rna.y i
containment and/or maintenance of the doors cannot be opened simultaneously and the reactor will be shut down for whenever the air lock is used and the tube plugging on detection and interlock mechanism for the primary I; containment air locks during plant interlock mechanism is inoperable; and confirrnation of any of the following operations.The amendment is intended
- 2. locking closed one of the airlock conditions:
to assure containment integrity in the doors that remains operable if the (a) Sudden primary.to-secondary 6; event the containment air lock itself is interlock mechanism or air lock door leakage of150 gpd (0.1 gpm)in either N operable-but 1e airlock door interlock cannot be returned to service within 24 steam generator. I; mechanism is inoperable-by hours; and (b) Any primary.to-secondary leakage substituting administrative controls to
- 3. Verifying that an uperable air lock in excess of 250 gpd (0.17 spm)in eithir i!
ensure that at least one door is closed at door la locked closed prior to each steam generator. fi all times while the raechanical interlock closing of the shield door and at least (c) An upward trend in primary.to. l mechanism is undergoing repair or once per shift while the shield door la secondary leakage in excess of15 gpd t maintenance.De purpose of the open. (0.01 gpm) per day when measured 2 proposed change le to amplify and NB: Outside the containment, the air primary-to-secondary leakage is above T clarify the Technical Specification in lock is completely enclosed in a shield 150 gpd. this regard. cubicle that has a door (shield door)
- 3. The reactor will be shut down, any Basis forproposedno significant with two locks on it. Opening of the leaking steam generator tubes plugged, hozords consideration determination:
shield door is alarmed in both the and an eddy current examination
it 12168 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 1985 / Notices perictmed if any of the following radiological nor non. radiological clearly within all acceptable criteria conditions are present: environmental impact. The new steam with respect to the system or component (a) confirmation of primary.to. generators have been operating specified in the Standard Review Plan". secondary leakage in either steam satisfactorily for approximately one De licensee has provided the results generator in excess oE500 gpd (D 35 year.The staff has concluded that the of a reanalysis of the loss of flow gpm). I restrictions imposed by the transient, performed by Westinghouse. (b) Any two identified Idaking tubes in Commission's Orders are no longer in support ofits proposed amendment any 20 calendar day period. necessary with the exception of those application.The analysis methodology This eddy current program will be items incorporated into the Technical and assumption for this transient are ~ submitted to the NRC for staff review. Specifications which will not be consistent with those used in the FSAR
- 4. The NRC staff will be provided with changed by the proposed amendment.
supporting previously approved . a summary of the results of the eddy Because the replaced steam generators licensing of Optimized Fuel Assembles. current examination performed under are not significantly different than those While the DNBR margin will be item 3 above includmg a description of previously in place at Point Beach reduced at the lower inp frequency, the the quality assurance program covering Nuclear Plant except where the changes results of the analysis indicate that the tube examination and plugging This were reviewed and approved in the departure from nucleate boiling ratio summary willinclude a photograph of staff's Safety Evaluation the staff finds (DNBR) remains well within the - the tubesheet of each steam generator that the proposed amendments would accepted limits. Therefore, the staff which will verify the location of tubes n t:(1)Inv Ive a significantincrease in believes that4he proposed amendments which have been plugged. the probability or consequences of an match the Commission's example of
- 5. The licensee will not resume accident previously evaluated, or (2) actions likely to involve no significant operation after the eddy current create the possibility of a new or hczards considerations and proposes to esaminations required to be performed different kind of accident from any determine that the amendments involve in accordance with condition 3 above accident previously evaluated; or (3) no significant hazards considerations.
until the Director. Office of Nuclear inv ive a significant reduction in a oco/Public Document Room Reactor Regulation determines in margm of safety. Thuefore, the staff location: Joseph P. Mann Public Library, writ ng that the results of such tests are proposes to petermine that the 1516 Sixteenth Street.Two Rivers. acceptable. amendment mvolves no significant Wisconsin. hazards considerations.
- 6. Unit I will not be operated with Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald more than 18% of tubes plugsed m either ofe'p#
Charnoff. Esq., Shaw. Pittman. Potts & / h P. n i Library. steam generator. Trowbridge.1800 M Street NW.,
- 7. Unit I will be operated at a reactor 1516 Sixteenth Street. Two Rivers' Washington D.C.20036.
coolant pressure of 2000 psia with the )flo C forlicensee: Gerald NRCBmnch Chief: James R. Miller. associated parameters fi e.. Charnoff. Esq.. Shaw. Pittman, Potts & Yankee Atcmic Electric Company, overtemperature delta T and low Trowbridge.1800 M Street NW Docket No 50-29. Yankee Nuclear pressurizer pressure trip point) w.ith Wa shington. D.C. 20036. Pow er Station. Franklin County, hmits mdicated in the Safety Evaluation Report appended to the Orders. NRCBronch Chief: James R. Miller. Massachusetts The above conditions (with the Wisconsin Electric Power Company. Date of amendment request: May 26. - exception ofitems 1 and 7 which are Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 1981 as revised january 23.1984. currently included in the Technical Beach Nuclear Plant. Unit Nos.1 and 2 Description of amendment request: Specifications) would be deleted by the Town of Two Creeks. Manitowoc The proposed emendment would make a proposed amendments and the County, Wisconsin number of changes to the Technical requirements of Technical Specification Date of amendment request: January Specifications (TSs).These changes are: 15.3.1.D would be in effect. 30.1985. (1) Correction of typographical errors Basis forproposedno significant Description ofomerdment request: and clarifications which do not change hazards considerction determinction: The proposed amendments would revise the intent of the TSs and involve no The operating restnctions imposed by the Technical Specifications covering reduction in safety;(2) the addition of a the Commission's Orders were the low frequency trip setpoints for the torther restriction in the TSs by removal necessary because of the severely reactor coolant pump motor breakers. of reference to 3 loop operation as 3 loop degraded nature of Point Beach Unit 1 Specifically. the low frequency trip operations are not permitted at Yankee steam generators Those steam setpoint would be changed from S7.5Hz until further analysis is performed and generators were replaced in late 1983-to 55.0Hz. approved by the lyRC:(3) addition of ezrly 1984 with new lower internals Basisforproposedno significant limitations or restrictions in the TSs to including tube bundles and refurbished hazards consideration determination be consistent with TMI Action Plan upper internals.The staff's Safety The Commission has provided guidance requirements of NUREG-0737 and NRC ' Evaluation of July 15.1983 concluded concerning the application of the Generic Letter 82-16; (4) addition of that replacement of the steam standards for determining whether a limitations. restrictions or controls in the generators fo< Point Beach Unit 1 could significant hazard exists by providing TSs to be consistent with NUREG.-0825. ~: be conducted safety and that continued certain exarnples (48 FR 14870). One of " Integrated Plant Safety Assessment opzration with the replaced steam the examples of actions involving no Systematic Evaluation Program for the l generators would not pose a threat to significant hazards considerations is Yankee Nuclear Power Station:" (5) the public health and safety. The staff's example (vi). "a change which either revisions to radiological effluent TSs to environmental review was completed on may result in some increase to the correct typographical errors or achieve September 30.1983 and in it the staff probability or consequences of a more consistency throughout the TSs: (6) concluded that replacement of the Unit 1 previously analyzed accident or may revisions and additions to the TSs that stram generators and subsequent reduce in some way a safety margin but involve additional restrictions or operation would have neither significant where the results of the change are surveillance requirements in e
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. Se / Wednesday, March 27. 1985 / Notices 12169 radiological effluent TSs to be more involve a significiant hazards . setting for the main steam line high consistent with NUREG-0472. consideration. Item (7) roerely revises radiation scram and isolation setpoints Radiological Effluent Technical the basis for a Technical Specification. to accommodate a short-term test of Specifications fo) PWRs;(7) revision to item (8) is a change which would not:(1) operation with hydrogen injection into the basis for TS 3/4.7.6. Sealed Source involve a significant increase in the the reactor coolant. Contamination, to includt a basis for probability or consequences of a Date ofpublication ofindividbol l exempting sealed scarces contained accident previously evaluated; or (2) notice in Federal Register: 50 FR 7800 within radiation monitoring or boron create the possibility of a new er February 26.1965. l measuring devices from leak testing different kind of accident from any Empimtion dote ofindividuolnotice: requirements.This will make the basis accident previously evaluated; or (3) March 27.1965. more consistent with other TSs and with involve a significant reduction in the I.oco/Public Document Room Standard Technical Specifications. This margin of safety because the change Location: Plymouth Public Ubrary. change is administrative only and does does not significantly relax any existin8 North Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts b not remove or relax any existing safety requirements but updates the IT 02360. e requirements as it affects the Basis of requirements to be consistent wnh the 'i the TSs only:(8) revise TSs for NRC approved Yankee Operational Unlon Electric Company, Docket No. 50- 'l Operational Quality Assurance Program Quality Assurance Program.Derefore, 483. Callaway Plant. Callaway County. which require conformance to ANSI Item (8) meets the standards provided in Missoud N18.7-1972 and Regulatory Guide 1.33, to CFR 50.92(c)- Date ofamendmentrequest: February i i of November 1972 to the more current nerefore, Since Items (1) through (9) 12.1985. i NRC requirements stated in ANSI of the application for amendment Description of amendment request; i N18.7-1976 and in Regulatory Guide involve proposed changes that are ne proposed amendment would allow d 1.33. Revision 2. In addition, this similar to examples or meet the for an extension of the time period for J revision will be more consistent with the standards for which no significant completion of the containment vessel f Yankee Operational Quality Assurance hazards consideration exists, the staff C Program; and (9) revise TSs to reduce has made a proposed determination that tendon surveillances required by Technical Specification Surveillance the time between Audits of the Facibty the proposed amendment involves no 4.6.1.6.1. Security Plan and Facility Emergency significant hazards consideration. e Plan from 24 months to 12 months.This LocalPublic Document Room Date ofpublication ofindividual g reduction in time between audits is an location: Greenfield Community College' notice in FedemlRegister: February 27, 4 additier.al restriction in the TSs. It is 1 College Drive. Greenfield. 1985 Do FR 8024 also more in conformance with Generic Massachusetts 01301. Expimtion date ofindividuolnotice: a March 28,1985 Letters 82-17 and 82-23 and the A ttorneyfor hcensee: Thomas Dignan. regulations of to CFR 50.54(t) and 10 Esqui e. Ropes and Gray,225 Franklin LocalPublic DocumentRoom locations: Fulton City Ubrary,700 ucfe r Safety Audit B c ef o wo ski. cond cted b he nd O in U o' f as ng o and Review Committee. PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED NOTICES University, Skinker and Lindell i; The remaining issues addressed in the OF CONSIDERA110N OF ISSUANCE Boulevards, St. Louis, Missouri 63130. application dated May 26.1981 as OF AMENDMENTS TO OPERATING o f revised January 23,1964 and February LICENSES AND PROPOSED NO Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, E 26.1985 will be addressed in future SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Nuclear correspondence. CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION Power Plant, Kewaunee County, Basis forproposedno significant AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING N,*****'" b hozords considerction determination: The following notices were previously Date ofopplication request: February l The Commission has provided guidance published as separate individual 7,1985. s concerning the application of standards notices.The notice content was the Briefdescription of amendment:ne d for a no significant hazards considersion same as above.ney were published as amendment would provide relief from a I by providjng certain examples (48 FR individual notices because time did not restriction in the plant technical q 14870).The eumples include:(i) A allow the Commission to wait for this 8pecifications on hydrotesting of the purely admimstrative change to the TSs f: to achieve consistency throughout the regular monthly notice.ney are secondary side with the primary side H TSs, correct errors of clarify TSs: (ii) a repeated here because the monthly above 350'F. change that constitutes an additional notice lists all amendments proposed to Date ofpublication ofindividual limitatMn, restriction or contml not be issued involving no significant notice in Federal Register: March 4,1985 hazards consideration. (50 FR 8688). presently include in the TSs and (vii) a For details. see the individual notice Expimtion date ofindividuolnotice: g change to mcke the license conform to in the Federal Register on the day and April 3,1985. 3 changes in the regulations. page cited. This notice does not extend loco /PublicDocumentRoom Items (1) and (5) which correct the notice period of the original notice. location: University of Wisconsin typgraphical errors or achieve more Library learning Center,2420 Nicolet consistency with otherTSs are Boston Edison Company, Docket No. 50-Drive, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301. 5 encompassed by the Commission's 293, Pilgnm Nuclear Power Station, N example (i) of actions not likely to Plymouth, Massachusetts NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF A j involve a significant hazards Dates ofopphrotion for amendment.. O L1 E consideration. Items (2). (3). (4). (8) and February 1 and 15,1985. h (9) which are additionallimitations, Briefdescription of amendment ne During the 30 day period since <C restrictions or controls in the TSs are amendment revises the Technical publication of the last monthly notice, H encompassed by the Commission's Specifications to permit changes in the the Commission has issued the following h example (ii) of actions not likely to normal full power background trip level amendments. De Commission has o I i ?l
,12170 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, toss / Notices determined for each of these Amendment Nos.: 57 and 49. contained in a Safety Evaluation dated cmendments that the application Facilities Operating License Nos. March 18,1985. complies with the standa(ds and NPF-2andNPF-d. Amendmenta revised No significant horards consideration requirements of the Atoqic Energy Act the Technical Specifications.. comments received. No. of 1954, as amended (the Act); and the Date ofinitialnoticein Federal LocalPublic Document Roo,m. Commission's rules and regulatioris. The Register: April 25,1984 (49 F'R 17851). location:Tomlinson Ubraryf, Arkansas Commission has made appropriate The Commission's related evaluation of Tech University.Russellville, Arkansas findmgs as required by the Act and the the amendment is contained in a Safety 72801. Commission's rules and regulations in 10 Evaluation dated February 19,1985. B m Ca c CFR Chapter I. which are set forth in the Significant hazards consideration g [c Co sid ration ofIssuance of Local /Ic ent Room Cliffs Nuclear Powar Plant. Unit Noa.1 oc Amendment to Facility Operating location: George S. Houston Memorial and 2. Calvert County, Maryland ucense and Proposed No Significant Library,212 W. Burdeshaw Street. Date of application for amendments: Hzzards Consideration Determination Dothan, Alabama 36303. April 9 and June 29,1964. and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with these actions was Arkansas Power and Light Company. Br/ef description of amendments: The amendments changed the Technical published in the Federal Register as ' No, 3 At an s a Specifications to provide Limiting O
- Unl, p
ses indicated. No request for a hearing or Conditions for Operation and petition for leave to intervene was filed Date of applicationforamendment: Surveillance Requirercents for certain following this notice. August 15,1984. NUREG-0737 items. Unless otherwise indicated. the Briefdescription of amendment:The Date ofissuance: Februari 22.1985. Commission has determined that these amendment provides additional Effective date: February 22.1985. emendments satisfy the criteria for Technical Specifications for ANO-1 Amendment Nos.:99 and 81. categorical exclusion in accordance which require operating restrictions and facility Opemting License Nos. DPR-with to CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant testing of the Low Temperature M andDPR-69. Amendments changed 1310 CFR 51.22(b). no environmental Overpressure Protection System. the Technical Specifications. impact statement or environmental Date of essuance: March 4,1985. Date ofinitia/ notice in Federal assessment need be prepared for these Effectsve date: March 4,1985. Register: December 31,1984 (49 FR 50794 cmendments. If the Commission has Amendment No.:95. at 50796b'Ge Commission's related prrpared an environmental assessment facility Operating License No. DPR-evaluation of the amendments is undrr the special circumstances M. Amendment revised the Techrucal provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has Specifications. contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Feb made a tietermination based on that Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal !$azards consideration essrssment. it is so indicated. Register: September 28,1984 (49 FR N sign c C {" 'C'I['d No For further details with respect to the 38393). The Commission's related 7,, cction see:(1) The applications for evaluation of the amendment is cmrndments. (2) the amendments. and contained in a Safety Evaluation dated loccuan: Calvert County Library. Prince (3) the Commission's related letters. March 4.1985. Frederick, Maryland. 5:fety Evaluations and/or No significant hazards consideration Baltimore Cas & Electric Company, Environmental Assessments as comments received: No. Docket Nos. 5&317 and 50-318 Calvert indicated. All of these items are Loco /Public Document Room Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos.1 available for public inspection at the location:Tomlinson Library. Arkansas and 2, Calvert County, Maryland Commission's Public Document Room. Tech University.Russellville. Arkansas l 1717 H Street. NW., Washington, D.C.. 72801. Date of application for amendments: and at the local public document rooms October 11.1964. 1 for the particular facilities involved. A Arkansas Power and IJght Company, Brief description of amendments: The r Docket Nos. 50413 and 50-368, amendments revised the Technical s copy ofitems (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Specifications (TS) to:(1) Provi,de an c U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pope County. Arkansas environmental moniton,na program v Washington. D C. 20555. Attention: Date of applicofion for amendments: which meets the requirements of / Director, Division of Ijcensing. October 16,1984. Appendix I to to CFR Part 50, and (2) Briefdescription of amendment The delete the existing environmental Alabama Power Company. Docket Nos. amendments revised th~e Technical monitoring TS in the Appendix B'IS 50-348 and 50-364 Joseph M. Farley Specifications to require that keys to which are no longer needed. Nuclzt Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2. key operated handswitches for the ANO Date ofissuance: February 22.1985. 6. Houston County, Alabama 1 and 2 containment purge valves be Effective date: February 22.1985. Sj 'Date of application r amendments: removed when purge valves are Amendment Nos.:100 and 82. Fcbrutry 3.1984 supp emented required to be closed. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-R, September 14. and November 28.1984. Date ofissuance: March 18.1985. 53 andDPR-69. Amendments revised 4: Briefdescription of amendments: Effective date: March 18,1985. the Technical Specificatione. es .T;chnical Specifications are modified to Amendment Nos.: 96 and 64. Date ofinitic/noticein Federal cc incorporate revisions in reporting Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-Register: December 31.1964 (49 FR 50794 Fe requirrments in response to Generic M and NPT-6. Amendments revised the at 50799). The Commission's related letter 8343 to comply with to CFR 50.72 Technical Specifications. evaluation of the amendments is co and 50.73 which became effective Date ofinitia/ notice in Federal contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Janutry 1,1984. Register: November 21,1984 (49 FR February 22,1985. loc Date ofissuance: February 19.1985. 45941 at 45943). The Commission's No significant hazards consideratior. Lil Effective date: February 19.1985. related evaluation of the amendmentsis comments received: No. No
i lll 1 i 5 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 1985 f Notices 12171 LocalPublic Document Room Carolina Power and Ught Company. Date ofissuance: February 27.1985. ,l j Location: Calvert County 1.ibrary, Prince ~ Docket No. 50-261. H.B. Robinson Stem Effective date: February U.1985. Frederick, Maryland. Electric Plant Unit No. 2, Derhngton. Amendment Nos.:85 and 78. Baltimore Gas & El'ectric Co* pany. ^ Pmvisiona/ Opeinting License No.' S uth Carolina m t Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-h18. Calvert Date of applicationfor amendment: DPR-29 andFacility Opemting Ltcense. "1 Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 March 21,1984. as supplemented by No. DPR-25. The amendmenta revise the 'I cnd 2. Calvert County. Maryland November 8,1984. Technical Specifications. Briefdescription ofamendment:Tbe Date ofinitialnoticein Faderal amendment revised the Technical Register: December 31,1964 (50 R Date of application for amendments:. I " ' 29 1984-Specification to provide conformance 50800). The Commission's related .t Brief description of amendments: The with 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 The evaluation of the amendments is amendments changed Technical I censee's secand submittal dated contained in a letter dated February 27 .3pecification 4.7.11.3c.2 Halon November 8,1984 was largely due to 1985. 4 Systems to revise the Surveillance Amendments 83,64, and 85 issued No significant hazards consideration el requiremena for the Switchgear Room subsequent to their March 21,1984 comments received: No. 1 Halon and Cable Spreading Room total submittal.The subsequent amendmenta LocalPublic Document Room flood halen Fire supprusion systems. affected pages of the reporting location: Morris Public Ubrary 004 l Date efissuance: March 7,1985. requirements as described in the Uberty Street, Morris. Illinois 80450. Effective date: March 7.1985. licensee's November 8,1984 forwardmg Commonwealth Edison Company, Amendment Nos. 101 and 83. letter. Minor changes of a clarification Docket No. 50-265. Quad Cities Nuclear il Facilsty Operating License Nos. DPR-nature were s!so made as a result of the Power Station, Unit 2 Rock Island .I 53 andDPR-69 Amendments revised NRC review process. Therefore, no County Enois the Technical Specifications. substantive changes were made by the Date ofinitialnotice in Federal licensee's November 8.1984 resubmittal. Date of application foramendment: g' Register: December 31.1984 (49 FR 50794 Date ofissuance: March 15,1985. December 4,1984. at 50797).The Commission's related Effective date: March 15,1985. Brief description of amendment:The evaluation of the amendments is Amendment No.:89. amendment revises the Technical i e, contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Facility Operating License No. DPR-Specifications to allow a temporary March 7.1985-
- 23. Amendment revised the Technical increase in the Unear Heat Generation f
i No significant hazards consideration Specifications. Rate (IRCR) from 13.4 to 15.0 kw/ft for j comments receised. No-Date ofinitialnotice in Federal certain Barrier Fuel Test Assemblies g 4 ocalPublic Document Room Register: April 25.1984 (49 FR 17857). present in the Unit 2 core. This new limit i l Location: Calvert County 1.ibrary. Prince The Commission's related evaluation of applies only during the remainder of the j g Fredenck. Maryland. the amendment is contained in a Safety current Operating Cycle 7. Evaluation dated March 15,1985. Date ofissuance: February 25,1985. [ Carolina Power & Ught Company, ( Docket No. 50-324. Brunswick Steam Significant hazards consideration
- Effective date: February 25,1985.
comments received: No. Amendment No.:85. l 3 Electric Plant, Unit 2, Brunswick County, l North Carolina F&lity Operating License No. DPR-IocalPublic Document Room l Date of cp;lica!!on for amendment: ofe and Fi
- 30. Amendment revised the Technical e
e, lie Spec ca h September 26.1984. South Carohna 29535' Brief description of amendment: The Date ofinitialnoticein Federal 'p amendment changes the Technict, Commonwealth Edison Company, Register: January 23.1985,50 FR 3049. n Specifications by resising Tablet 3.3.5.2-Docket Ncs.50-237/249 Dresden The Commission's related evaluation I and 4.3.5.2-1 and TS 3/4.6.6.4 'o reflect Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and of the amendment is contained in a ( requirements for the drywell/ 3, Grundy County, Illinois Safety Evaluation dated February 25. I j suppression chamber hydrogm and Date of application for amendments: 1985. h oxygen analyzers. These requirements March 15.1984 as supplemented by a No significant hazards consideration h were identified in NUREG-0737 as TM1 letter dated September 21,1984. comments received: No. 6 Action Plan Item Il.F.1.6. Brief description of amendments:The LocalPublic Document Room r! Date ofissuance. February 20.1985. amendments delete the Technical location: Moline Public Ubrary. 504-17th y Effective date: February 20,1985. Specifications (TS) snubber t^1as. Street Moline, Illinois 61265 h Amendment No.:108. 3.6.1.s and 3.6.1.b and all rel ce to Commonwealth Edison Company, h Facil:ty Operating License No. DPR-them to reflect the guidance u. 'menc Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304 Zion
- 62. Amendment revised the Technical letter 84-13. Additionally, TS Sections fJuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1 and
{ Specificatons. 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.14 were revised to remove 2* Benton County
- Illinola y
any reference to the Torus Ring Header W Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal k Register: November 2,1934 (49 FR Snubber work which has been Date of application for amendments: $ 'j 45943). The Commission's related completed at both units. Section 4.6.2 October 17,1984 and supplemented evaluation of the amendment is and the Bases for Section 3.6.I are January 3, and January 16,1985. u I contained in a Safety Evaluation dated revised to remove limits on the type of Briefdescription of amendments: l February 20.1985. functional testing performed on the These amendments add a specification j No significant hazards consideration snubbers. Finally, Section 4.6.I.2 and for hydrogen monitors to match the comments received: No. 4.6.I.4 and the Bases for 3.6.I are being Standardized Technical Specifications LocalPublic Document Room revised to allow for velocity range tests and eliminate specifications for the i location: Southport. Brunswick County as required by certain types of snubbers hydrogen purge fan system which now Ubrary.109 W. Moore Street, Southport, which were not used at the site until serves only as a backup to the new North Carolina 28461. recently. operable hydrogen recombiner system.
l 12172 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 1985 / Notices The licensee s submittals of January 3 Duke Power Company Docket Nos. SS-florida Power and Usht Company, et al. and 16.1985 were made (s a result of 369 and 50-32, McGul e Nudear Docket No. 544es, St. tascie Mant.Umst NRC staff request to clardy the language Station, Units 1 and 2 Mecklenbaarg No. 2, St. Laacle County, flornia of the origia.a! submittal deted October County, North Carolina. Date of applich of amadmant- ~ 17,1984, and do not contam substantive Date of applicofion for amendments: September 28 and October 19,1964. [ chznges. laly 31,1964. Briefdescription of amendment:The Date ofissuance: March 14,1985. Brief description of amendments:ne amendment changed the somenclature Efective date: March 14.1985. amendments change the Technical of three valves in Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-2 Amendment Nos.:87 and 77. Specifications to expand Tables 3.3-10 Date ofIssuance: March 15,1985. Facihty Ope:ating License Nos. DRP. and 4.3-7 concerning accident Effective Date: March 15.1965. Amendment No.:10. J9andDPR43. Amendments revised monitoring instrumentation and Facility Opemting License No. NPF-the Technical Specifications. surveillance requirements to include the
- 18. Amendment revised the Technical recently installed Reactor Vessel level Da. te ofinitialnotice in Federal Instrumentation System and to include Specifications.
RIgistzr December 31,1984 (49 R both channels of the Subcooling Margin Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal Register October 29,1964 (49 FDR 080 4 Monitoring System. 43517) ne Commission's related The Commission a related evaluation Date ofissuance: February 28,1985. evaluaHon of de amendment is of the amendments is contained in a Effe da b" Safety Evaluation dated March 14.1985. contained in a Safety Evaluation date March 15.1985. ho significant hazards consideration IOCill'1 OP'. M i"8 JC'"88 N08 # F-No significant hazards consideration L. comments receis ed. No.
- dNP 7 Amedmmts nvised the comments received: No.
LocoIPubhc Document Room Tk} i 8 Specificadons. LocalPublic Ducument Room location: Zion Benton Library District. Date ofinitic/ notice m Federal location: Indian River Junior College 2600 Emmaus Avenue. Zion. Illinois Registen October 24.1984 (49 FR 42817). Library,3209 Virginia Avenue. Ft. The Commission's related evaluation of pierce. Florida. Consolidated Edison Company of New the amendments is contained in a Safety York, Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point Evaluation dated February 28.1985. Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation Mumcipal Electric Nucint Generating Unit No.2, No significant hazards consideration Authority of Georgia. City of Dalt,on. comments received: No. Westchester County, New York ueorgia, Docket No. 50-321 Edwm I. LocalPublic Document Room Hatch Nuclear Plant. Unit No.1. Appling Date of application for amendment-location: Atkins Library, University of County, Georgia February 28.1964. North Carolina. Charlotte (UNCC Briefdescription of amendment:The Station). North Carolina 28223. Date of application for amendment: emendment resises the Technical February 6,1984, as supplemented April Duquesne Ught Company. Docket No. 16,1984. Specifications to incorporate the 334, Beaver y, ey Power Station. Briefdescription of amendment he I requirements of NUREG-0737 Item Unit No.1, Sh,ppmgport, Pennsylvania amendment revises the TSs for Hatch i II.B 1 " Reactor Coolant System Vents, The Technical Specifications have been Date -f apphcotton for amendment: Unit 1 to increase the reactor pressure revised to ensure that the Indian Poin October 10.1984. operability requirement for the High Unit No. 2 Reactor Coolant Vent System Briefdescription of amendment:The Pressure Coolant Injection and Reactor is available to effectively vent amendment changes the Technical Core Isolation Cooling systems from 113 noncondensible gases from teh reactor Specifications for Beaver Valley Unit ,psig to 130 psig. coolant system without significantly No. I to eliminate the Tables listing.;; Date ofissuance: March 12,1985. increasing the probability of a Loss of mechanical and hydraulic snubbers. to Effective date: March 12,1985. Amendment No.r107. Coolant Accident or challenge to add a new surveillance requirement on the recirculation spa'y subsystem, and facility Operating License No. DPR-r
- 57. Amendment revised the Techmcal containment integrity, to clarify a number of existing Date ofissuance: February 28.1985.
specifications. Specifications. , E#ective dater immediately with Date ofissuance: Febnaary 22.1985. Date ofinitia/ notice in Federal Registen June 20,1964 (49 R 2W he implementation within 30 days. Effective date-February 22,1985 Commission's related evaluation of the Amendment No.:93. Amendment No.:91* amendment is contained in a Safety Facilities Opercting License No. . cense a DPR-Evaluation dated March 12,1985. y pe ng DPR-26; Amendment revised the vised 6e Tuhmcal ' he No significant hazards consideration Technical Specifications. n Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal Date ofiniticinotice in Federal R:gister: April 25,1984 (49 FR 17858) Register: December 31,1984 (49 FR loc t A ng nty Pub Library The Commission s related evaluation of 50804).The Commission's related 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia. the amendment is contamed in a Safety evaluation of the amendment la Evaluation dated February 28.1985. contained in a Safety Evaluation dated GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-289, %ree Mile Island Nuclear Significant hazards consideration February 22.1985. Station. Unit No.1, Dauphin County, comments received: None. No significant hazards consideration , LocalPublicDocumentRoom comments received. None. P**D*YIV*Di* location: White Plains Public Library. LocalPublic Document Room Date of applicationfor amendment: 100 Martine Avenue. White Plains, New location: B.F. Jones Memorial Library, February 13,1964. York,10e10. e63 Franklin Avenne, Aliquippe. Brief description of amendment: This Pennsylvania 15001. amendment revises the Technical u
I Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 59 / Wednesday March 27 i z, ,1985 / Notices pecifications to add operability and 12173 erveillance requirements for the Iowa Electric Ught and Power Company. dChup incore thermocouple disqlayDocket No.50-331.Duane Arnold 426 nird Avenue, SE., Cedar Rapida, . Energy Center, unn County, town 3annels in response to the Iowa 52401, quirements of NDREG-073h Item. Date ofopplicationforamendment: i W d F.2(B). Cph August 20.1984, as revised September Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point @ote ofissuance: March 5.1985 14,1934-Nuclear Station, Unit No.1, Oswego Effective date: 30 days after issuance. Briefdescription ofamendment:This County, New York 4mendment No.105. amendment revises the Technical ~ Specihcation to:(1) Change the snubberDate ofapplicationforamendment: ~ r eci!,ty Operating License No. DpR-July 19.1964, testing following a isilure from 10% to Amendment revised the Technica! 5%. (2) delete the requirement to Briefdescription ofamendment:%e - ,m7;c,, no imease the drag force by 50% durin8amendment revises the Technical ble ofinitialnoticein Federal snabber functional tests, (3) delete Specification to make changes to the psttr: April 25.1984 (49 FR 17863). snubbers list from Technical Administrative Controls section to Commission s related evaluation of Specifications, and (4) correct some reflect a revised arrangement of certain amendment is contamed in a Safetytypog'sphical errors. upper management positions in the \\ !aation dated March 5,1985. Date ofissuance: March 12,1985. s corporate organizatiod. e significant hazards consideration Effective date: March 12,1985. ments received: No. AmendmentNo.1113. te ofimance e mary M 1E colPab!icDocument Room Facility Operating License No. DPR. Effective date: February 19,1985.
- 49. Amendment revised the Teshnical AmendmentNo.:68.
tion: Gos ernment Publications Specifications. Facility Operating License No. DPR-on. State Ubrary of Pennsylvania. Date ofinitialnoticein Federal
- 63. Amendment revised the Technical Etion Beilding Commonwealth and Register: November 21,1984 (49 FR Specifications.
- ut Streets. Harrisburg.
sylvania 17125. 45954) The September 14,1984 submittal Date ofinitialnoticein Federal contained clanfying information Register: September 28,1984 (49 FR Electric Ught and Power Company, not change the substance of the m,and did 38403). The Commission's related itial application. therefore. no additional evaluation of the amendment is et Nm. 50-331, Duane Arnold y CentIr, Unn County, Iowa notice was issued. contained in a hiety Evaluation dated The Commission's related evaluation Febmary 19,1985 e ofcpplicationforamendment: of the amendment is contained in a aber 26.1984. as supplemented Safety Evaluation dated March 12,1985.Nu significant hazards consideration er 26,1984. No 8ignificant hazards considersboncomments received: No. 7 description ofamendment: LocalPublicDocument Room comments received. No, The unt revises the license to LocalPublicDocument Room location: State University College at location: Cedar Ra Oswego Penfield Library-Documents. < the commitment of the use. by426 Third Avenue, pids Public Library, SE., Cedar Rapids, Oswego, New York 13126. urity Force, of rifles from the Arnold Energy Center Security Iowa 52401' ~ N g*ra Mohawk Power Corporation, @ the Cuard Training and Docket No. 50-331, Duane ArnoldIowa Electric Light and Power Com
- ntion Plan. % e are also updating Nuclear Station, Unit No.1, Oswego 1st to incorporate any l 50.54lp)
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa County, New York ' that have occurred. ,fissuance: February 26.1985. Date of applicationforamendment: Date ofopplicationforamendment: ive date: February 26,1985. Febmary 27.1W as r& sed August WAugust 7,1984. Briefdescription ofamendment: nentNo.:112. B iefdescription ofamendment: This amendment revised the Technical e The y Operating License No. DpR-amendment revises the Technical Specifications concerning changes to 'dment revised the license. Specifications to incorporate changes Section 6.5.2.8 of the Admm, istrative 'initiclnotice in Federal related to: (1) Clarification in 12 areas, Controls Sechon. November 21,1984 (49 FR (2) updating teferences in 12 areas, and (3) correction of typographic errors in Date ofissuance: February 25,1985. letter dated October 26.1984, five areas of the Technical Effective date: February 25,1985.
- t submitted a page correction Specifications.
AmendmentNo.2 69. ttmber 26,1984 application. &te ofiseuance: March 14.1985. Facility Operating License No. DPR-nttal falls within the scope of 4 Effective dote: March 14.1985.
- 63. Amendment revised the Technical nl notice.
A Amendment No.:114. Specifications. cmission's related evaluation
- [ndmn ndm:nt is containedin a 49 se o Date ofinitialnoticein Federal luation dated February 26, Specifications ~
Register: September 28,1984 (49 FR e Date ofinitialnoticein Federal 36403).The Commission s related icant hazards consideration Register: October 24.1984 (49 FR 42824)., naluadon oW smendmends contamed in a Safety Evaluation dated d The Commission's related evaluation of received: No. February 25,1985. the amendment is contained in a Safety $lic Document Room Evaluation dated March 14,1985. No significant hazards consideration ition j
- dar Rapids Public Library, venue SE., Cedar Rapids, No significant hazards considerationcomments received: No.
comments received: No. localPublicDocument Room j LocalPublicDocument Room location: State University Collee,e at West location: Cedar Rapids Public Library, Oswego, Penfield Library-Documents,
- 9-i Oswego, New York 13126.
4 l
1 ' l. ' 3 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No, Se / Wednesday, March 27, taas / Notices 12175 1 Public Service Electric and Gas No significant hazards consideration Sacramento Medpat Utility Distdst. i l Company, Docket Nos. SNt?2 and 50-commenta received; No. Docket No. 58-312, F=A= Seca 311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, LocalPublic Document Room Nuclear Genersting Station,4r==8= Unit Nos.1 and 2, palem County, New location: Rochester Pubhc Ubrary,115 County, Califormia Jersey t South Avenue. Rochester, New York g 1*610' Date of application for cinendments: june K 1994. December 27,1983 and supplemented Sacramento Municipal Utility District
- Brief description of amendmentne j,
February 25,1985. Docket No. 50-312 Rancho Seco amendment revisee the Technical Brief description of amendments: The Nuclear Cenerating Station, Sacramento Specifications to Prescribe requirements amendments consists of three (3) County, California for reporting operational conditions and independent parts. Part (1) modifies the Date of applicationfor cmendmente events in accordance with to CHL 50.73. Salem Unit 1 Technical Specifications. July 22,1983, as supplemented June 3B Date ofissuance: March 8,1965. Ij Table 3.3-1 ( Action 1) and Table 3.3-3 and October 1,1984. (Action 13) to read the same as Salem Brief description of amendment:%e ,ffective dote: March 8,1965. E ,,,g,,,, y,,,3, 1 V Unit 2 Technical Specifications Tables amedmmt mvisa the Technical facility Operating Ucense Na DPR-3.3-1 and 3.3-3. Part (2) corrects a Specifications defining the requirements H. Amendment revised the Technical 4, )i typographical enor in the Salem Unit 32 for surveillance of Auxiliary Feedwater Tec nical Specifications. Part (3) revises System Auto-Start Instrumentation. Specifications. Date ofissuance: February 21.1985. Date ofinitialnoticein Federal I! Effective date: February 21,1985.. Registee: December 31,1984 (49 Mt er e pe at e del a react for [' both Units 1 and 2 and makes them Amendment No.:60.. 50623). identical. racility Operating License No. DPR-De Commission's related evaluation b The beensee's supplemental submittal M. Amendment revised the Technical of the amendmentis containedin a 6 dated February 25,1985 provided an Safety Evaluation dated March 8,1985. S ecifications. P additional Westinghouse analysis which Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal No significant hazards consideration was done subsequent to the original Register: May 23.1984 (49 FR 21837 and comments received: No. g Ucense change request.This submittal December 31,1984. 49 FR 50824).%e Loca1Public Document Room 1 will be the subject of a future action. Commission's related evaluation of the location: Sacramento City-County Date ofissuance: March 8.1985. amendment is contamed in a Safety Ubrary,828 i Street, Sacramento, i h Effective date: March 8.1985' Evaluation dated February 21,1985. Califomla.. Amendment Nos. 60 and 31. l' Facihty Operating Licenses Nos. No significant bazards consideration DPR-70andDPR-75: Amendments comments received: No. Secrunento Municipal Utility Dietrict, LocoIPublic Document Room Docket No.10-312. Rancho Seco I revised the Technical Specification. location: Sacramento City-County Nuc' car Generating Station, Sacramento p Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register December 31,1984 (49 FR 1.ibrary,828 i Street. Sacramento, County, California 50820) The Commission's related California. evaluation of amendments is contained Sacramento Municipal Utility District, April 19,1983. as supplemented s f in a Safety Evaluation dated March 8. Docket No. 54-312, Rancho Seco N wmber 14. N and June 25. W 1985. Nuclear Generating Station, Sacramento Briefdescription of amendment:The l Nos.ignificant hazards consideranon County, California amendment revises the Technical comments have been received. Date of application for amendment: Speciilcations to describe the current LocalPubhc Document Room January 26.1984, as supplemented luly off. site and on-site organizations and location: Salem Free Ubrary,112 West 11.1964, and revised October 30,1984. review committee membership and Broadway Salem, New Jersey 08079. Brief description of amendment:%e 9" *" "9 i I Rochester Cas and Electnc Corporation, amendment revises the Technical Ne ofissuandad 7. N Docket No. 50-244. R. E. Cinna Nuclear Specifications to clarify the use of the Effective date: March 7.1985 Pow er Plant, Wayne County, New York term " Operable" as it applies to single. Amendment No.:82. 3 Date of opphcation for amendment: failure criterion for safety systems. Date ofissuance: March 4,1985. Facility Operating License No. DPR-l lanuary 25.1985. Brief description of cmendment: The Effective date: March 4,1985. M. Amendment revised the Technical qi amendment modified the Technical Amendment No.:61. Specifications. Specifications authorizing the use of a facility Operating License No. DPR-Date ofinitialnotice in Federal l temporary closure plate in place of the M. Amendment revised the Technical Registar: April 25,1984 (49 FR 17872 and equipment hatch (door) during refueling Specifications. December 31,1984,49 FR 50823). The Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal Commission's related evaluation of the operations. Date ofissuance: March 8,1985. Register: December 31,1984 (49 HL amendment is contained in a Safety g I Effective date: March 8,1985 50822). evaluation dated March 7,1985. The Commission's related evaluation No significant hazards consideration Amendment No.:2 of the amendment is contamed in a c mmets mcei,g: NS Facihty Openting License No. DPR-
- 18. Amendment revised the Technical Safety Evaluation dated March 4,1985 LocalPublic Document Room Specifications.
No significant hazards consideration lecction: Sacraraento City County Date ofinitialnoticein Federal comments received: No. Ubrary,828 I Street. Sacramento, Register. February 5,1985 (50 FR 5020). LocalPublic Document Room Caliform,a. p The Commission's related evaluation location: Sacremento City-County i of the amendment is contained in a Ubrary,828 I Street, Sacramento. California. Safety Evaluation dated March 8,1985.,
l l 1 '12176 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednesday. March 27. 1985'/ Notices Southern Califomia Edison Company. Amendment Nos. 32 and 21. aevice in order to maintain the plant in a Dockst No. 50-206. San Onofre Nuclear Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-aste condition. CIntrating Station. Unit b'o. l. San ' 10andNPF-15: Amendments revised Date ofissuance: March 6.1965. DiIgo County, California, the Technical Specifications. Effective date: March 6.1985. Dates ofinitialnotices in Federal Amendment No.:4. Date ofcpplication for ame'ndment: Register: November 21,19M (49 FR Facility Opemting License No. NPF-July 17,19M. as revised on Nevember 45964 and 45%5 and 45966) and ,90 Amendment revised the Technical 30.1984 December 31,1984 (49 FR 50843 and Specifications. J Brief description of amendment:The 50845).The Commission s related Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal smendment modifies the Technical evaluation of the amendment is Register: kptember 28.1984 (50 FR Specifications by adding administrative contamed in a Safety Evaluation dated 38413).The Commission's related guidance and requirements relating to March,1,1985. evaluation of the amendment is the essignment of overtime to personnel No sigmficant hazards consideration contained in a Safety Evaluation, dated performing safety-related activities. comments were received. March 6.1985. Date ofissuance March 6.1985. LocalPublic Document Room No significant hazards consideration Effective date: March 6.1985. location: San Clemente Library 242 comments received: No. Amendment No.:88. ^"'*0* Del Mar. San Clemente. LocalPublic Document Room Provisional Operating License No. Califom.a. location: Fulton City Library. 709 Market DPR-JJ. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications. The Toledo Edison Company and The Street. Fulton. Missouri 65251 and Olin Date ofiniticinotice in Federal Cles eland Electric Illuminating Library of Washington University. Register: January 23.1985 (50 FR 3055). Company. Docket No. 50-346, Davis. Skinker and Lindell Boulevard. St. Louis. The Commission's related evaluation of Besse Nuclear Power Station. Unit No.1. Missouri 63130. the amendment is contained in a Safety Ottawa County, Ohio Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Evalu2 tion dated March 6.1985. Date of application for amendment: Corporation. Docket No. 50-271, i No significant hazards consideration May 5,1982 (part of item 1), and March Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, comments receis ed: No. 22.1984. Vernon. Vermont LocalPublic Dxument Room efde f dm Date of applicadonfor amendment location: San Clemente Public Library, ame dment o f es Ta es 3 I and March 26.1984, as supplemented 242 Avendia Del Mar. San Clemente. 4.3-10 relating to post-accident Cahfoma 92672. monitoring instrumentation by adding Brief description of amendment:The Southern Caliform.a Edison Company, et incore thermocouples, reactor coolant amendment revises the Technical cl. Docket Nos. 5N361 and 5G-362. San hot leg level. containment water level. Specifications to reflect a change from Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and containment pressure to the list of 120% to 140% in the main steam line high ' Units 2 and 3. San Diego County, post. accident instrumentation that must flow setpoint. In addition, the reactor Califorma be operable and are subject t powerlimit for quarterly MSIV full cl sure testing in increased from 50% to Dates of cpplication for emendments: ,'{9" ds S t on 6.8.4.c 75% of rated power. February 29. April 2. July 2. August 7 which re. quires the establishment of a Date ofissuance: February 21.1985. October 1 and 3,1984. Brief description of amendments: The P*[';'Ch ',",'u'**P'f8 P'y*(3 Effective date: February 21,1985. 0 ge g5, Amendment No.:86. amendments changes Technical Effective date: March 13* 1985' Facility Operating License No. DPR-l Specificati.ons to:(1) Accommodate Core Arnendment No.:St.
- 28. Amendment revised the Technical Protection Calculator software changes facility Operating License No. NPT-J.
being implemented for Cycle 2 Amendment revised the Technical Specifications. Dete ofinitialnoticein Federal I cperation. (2) allow Control Element Specifications. Register: May 23,1984 (49 FR 21848). By Assembly misalignment during requried Date ofinitialnotice in Federal physics testing. (3) be consirtent with Register: October 24.1984 (49 FR 42835). letter dated September 7.1984, the the assumptions used for Cycle 2 safety The Commission's rela'ed evaluation of licensee submitted clarifying analysis. (4) incorporate the results of the amendment is contained in a Safety information which falls within the scope of the initial notice. The Commission's the revised departure from nucleate Evaluation dated March 13.1985. boiling ration (DNBR) analysis and No significant hazards consideration related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation date explicitly defme the actions required if comments received: No. the core operating limit supervisory LocalPublic Document Room February 21.1985 system is out-of-service and one or both location: University of Toledo Library. No significant hazards consideration control element assembly calculators Documents Department. 2801 Bancroft comments received: No. cre inoperable, and (5) change certain Avenue. Toledo. Ohio 43606. LocalPublic Document Room location: Brooks Memorial Library. 224 specifications relating to reactor Um.on Electric Company. Docket No. 50-Main Street. Brattleboro Vermont 05301. protection instrumentation and 483. Callaway Plant. Unit 1. Callaway electrical power sources. Wiscons,n Electric Power Company. i Date ofissuance: March 1.1985. County, Missouri Dock'et Nos. 50-266 and 50-301. Point Effective date: Portions of the Date of application for amendment: Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 cmendments are effective as of the date August 1.1984. Town of Two Cmks. Manitowoc cf issuance and shall be fully Briefdescription of amendment ne County, wisconsin implemented within 30 days: the amendment consists of a change to the remainder of the amendments is Technical Specifications to add an Date of application for amendments: effsctive on initial entry into the first additional provision to allow for June 8. 7934. applicable operational mode following appropriate compensatory actions when Brief description of amendments:The first refueling. two range monitor channels are out of amendments revised Technical
!1 i Feder:1 Register / Vd. 50.'Ns. 59 / Wednesd:y March 27, 1985 / Notices MM Specification 15.3-10 to define the " fully NOT1CE OF ISSUANCE OF amendment inw!ves no siydficant withdrawn" condition of a control rod AMENDMENT TO FACIUTY hazards consihtion.De basis for this as equal to or greater than 225 steps OPERATING UCENS"E AND FINAL determination is contained ha time withdraw n. Figure 15.3.10-1 " Control DETERMINATION OF NO documents related to this acaian. Rod Insertien Limi$" has been revised SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS Awordingly, the amendments have beam to change " steps withdrawnJ to CONSIDERATION AND issued and made effective as indicated. 5 " percentage fo control bank OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING Unless otherwtse indicated. the withdrawn", (EX1 GENT OR EMERGENCY Commission has determined that thsee Date ofissuance: March 7.1985. CIRCUMSTANCES) amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in amordance ~ Effective date:20 days after issuance. During_the 30-day period since with to CFR 51.22. Derefore, pursuant Amendment Nos.:88 and 93. publication of the last monthly notice. to 10 CFR 51.22(b). no environmental 1 facil ty Operating License Nos. DPR-the Commission has issued the following impact statement or environmental e amendments.The Commission has assessment need be prepared for these 24 and DPR-27: determined for each of these amendments. If the Commission has }.J Date ofinitio/ notice in 3 Federal amendments that the application for the prepared an environmental assessment Register: September 28.1984 (49 FR amendment complies with the standards under the special circumstances I 38390 at 38414). The Commission's and requirements of the Atomic Energy provision in 10 CFR 5L12(b) and has e, l t related evaluation of the amendments,si Act of1954, as amended (the Act). and made a determination based on that q contained in a Safet> Evaluation dated the Commission's rules and regulations. ~ assessment. it is so indicated. March 7,1985. The Commission has made appropriate For further details with respect to the i No significant hazards consideration findings as required by the Act and the action see:(1) The apphcation for p comments receised: No-Commission's rules and regulations.The amendment. (2) the amendment to LocalPublic Document Room Commission has made appropriate Facility Operating Ucense, and (3) the ,j location: Joseph p. Mann Public Ubrary. findings as required by the Act and the Comminion's related letter. Safety i h 1216 Sixteenth Street.Two Rivers. Commission's rules and regulations in 10 Evaluation and/or Environmental h Wisconsin. CFR Chapter I which are set forth in the Assessment, as indicated. All of these Wisconsin Electric Power Company. license amendment. Items are available for public inspection I: Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301. Point Because of exigent or emergency at the Commission's Pubhc Document Ii Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 circumstances associated with the date ' Room.1717 H Street. NW., Washington. il Town of Two Creeks. Manitowoc the amendment was needed, there was D.C eand at the local public document County, Wisconsin not time for the Commission to publish. room for the particular facility involved. I r public comment before issuance. its A copy ofitema (2) and (3) may be Date of c--! cotion for amendments, usual ay Uce of Conodnahon of obtained upon request addressed to the May 2.1984 as revised September 5* Issuance of Amendment and Proposed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Igg-No Significant Hazards Consideration Washington. D.C. 20555. Attention: Brief desenption of amendments:The Determination and Opportunity for Director. Division of Licensing. smendments revised the surveillance Hearing. For exigent circumstances, a The Commission is also offering an ,q requirements for containment press release seeking public comment as pportunity for a hearing with respect to 1i prestressed tendons and added a to the proposed no significant hazards I""*"C' I hmiting cond: tion for operation. consideration determination was used. ^pr 20. l985 b I Date ofissuance: March 7.1985. and the State was consulted by ,,q , go,, hearing th r spe o Effective date: 20 days from date of telephone. In circumstances where issuance of the amendment to the y issuance. failure to act m a timely way would subject facility operating license and o Amendment Nos.:89 and 94. have resulted, for example, m derating any person whose interest may bs p ant. affected by this proceeding and who T Facihty Opercting I.icense Nos. DPR- [ u cc t pe de ,n wiShe8 to participate as a party in the l' 24 andDPR-2,. Amendments revised 30 days) has been offered and the State proceeding must file a written petition h the Technical Specifications. consulted by telephone whenever f r leave to intemne Requnts for a Date ofiniticinotice in Federal possible' hearing and petitions for leave to p' Registerijune 20.1984 (49 FR 25350 at b 25382). Renoticed November 2L 1964 (49 Under its regulations. the Comm.ission intervene shall be filed in accordance may issue and make an amendment with the Commission s " Rules of La FR 45941 at 45980). The Commission's. immediately effective, notwithstanding Practice for Domestic Ucensing related evaluation of the amendments is j the pendency before it of a request for a Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. If a contained in a Safety Evaluation dated hearing from any person. in advance of request for a hearing or petition for March 7.1985. the holdirg and completion of any leave to intervene is filed by the above 3' No significant hazards consideration required hearing. where it has date. the Commission or an Atomic comments received: No. determined that no significant hazards Safety and ucensing Board, designated Loco /Public Document Rocm consideration is involved. by the Commission or by the Chairman a location: Joseph P. Mann Public Library. The Commission has applied the of the Atomic Safety and ucensing 1516 Sixteenth Street. Two Rivers. standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made Board Panel, will rule on the request Wisconsin. a final determination that the and/or petition and the Secretary or the l!
12178 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 59 / Wednasday. March 27,1985 / Notices I l designated Atomic Safety and Licensing intervene, and have the opportunity to request. That determination will be Board willissue a notice of hearing or participate fully in the conduct of the based upon d balancing of the factors an apptcpriate order. hearing. including the opportunity to specified in to CFR 1714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and As required by 10 0FR 2.714. & present evidence and cross-examine 2.714(dl. petition for leave to i.Tervene shall set witnesses. forth with particularity the interest of Since the Commission has made a Power Authority of the State of New the petitioner in the proceeding and how final determination that the amendment York, Docket No. 50@, James A. I MtzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, that interest may be affected by the involves n< 7.:gmta.3nt hazards Oswego County, New York results of the proceedmg.The petition e:Aieration,if a hearing is requested. should specifically esplain the reason, it will not stay the effectiveness of the Date ofopplicationfor amendment: why intervention shou!d be permittrd amendment. Any hearing held would December 6,1984. as supplemented with particular reference to the take place while the amendment is in January 10.1985. February 8.14. and 21. following factors: (1) The nature ci the effect. 1985. petitioner's nght under the Act u be A request for a hearing or a petition Brief description of amendment:The made a party to the proceedm;:(2) the for leave to intervene must be filed with amendment revises the Technical nature and extent of the pet.noner's the Secretary of the Commission. U.S. Specifications to permit refueling with property, fmancial. or other interest in Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Reactor Protection System and the proceedmg. and (3) the possible Washington. D C. 20555. Attention: certain specified refueling interlocks and effect of any order whic.h may be Docketing and Service Branch, or may control rod blocks inoperable. These entered in the proceeding on the be delivered to the Commission's Public revisions will facilitate installa tion of petitioner's interest. The petition should Document Room.1717 H Street. NW., Analog Trip Transrnitter components also identify the specific aspect (s) of the Washington. D.C.. by the above date. during the Reload 6/ Cycle 7 refueling subject rnatter of the proceeding as to Where petitions are filed during the last outage. which petitioner wishes to intervene. ten (10) da)s of the notice period, it is Date ofissuance: February 22,1985. Any person who has filed a petition for requested that the petitioner promptly so Effective date: February 22.1985. lease to intenene or who has been inform the Commission by a toll-free Amendment No.7 87, admitted as a party may amend the telephone call to Western Union at (800) racility Operating l.icense No. DPR-petition without requesting lease of the 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-8700).
- 59. Amendment revised the Technical Board up to fifteen (15] da)s prior to the The Western Union operator should be Spec fications.
first prehearing conference scheduled in given Datagram identification Number Public comments requested as to the proceedmg. but such an amended 3737 and the following message proposed no significant hazards petition must satisfy the specificity addressed to fBranch Chief); petitioner's requirements described abose. name and telephone number; date consideration: Yes. February 4.1985 (50 FR 4929). Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to petition was mailed: plant name; and No comments received. the first prehearirg conference publication date,and page number of scheduled in the proceeding. a petitioner this Federal Register notice. A copy of The Commission's related evaluation shall file a supplement to the petition to the petition should also be sent to the of the amendment and fmal intenene which must include a list of Executive Legal Director. U.S. Nuclear ~ d),
- tio f
fi co ,, ion are conta e in a Safe 3 the contentions which are sought to be Regulatory Commission %ashington. litigated m the matter. and the bases for D.C. 20555. and to the attorney for the Evaluation dated Februa'ry 22 1985' each contention set forth with licensee. IocalPublic Document Room reasonable specificity. Contentions shall Nontimely filings of petitions for leave f, cation: Penfield Library. State U be limited to matters within the scope of to intervene, amended petitions. h,niversity College of Oswego. Oswego. ew Yoi the amendment under consideration. A supplemental petitions and/or requests petitioner who fails to f21e such a for hearing will not be entertained Dated at Bethesda. Maryland this :oth day supplement which satisfies these absent a determination by the of March 1985. requirements with respect to at least one Commission, the presiding officer or the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commrssion contention will not be permitted to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board James R. Miller, participate as a party. designated to rule on the petition and/or Chief OpemtingReador Bmnch *J. Those permitted to intervene become request, that the petitioner has made a Dmsion off.icensing parties to the proceedmg. subject to any substantial showing of good cause for IFR Doc. 85-7143 Filed 3-2tM5. 8 45 aml limitations in the order granting leave to the granting of a late petition and/or ,eumo coce nem 6}}