ML20197A861
| ML20197A861 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1986 |
| From: | Andrews R OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197A843 | List: |
| References | |
| A00L-861021, AL-861021, GL-85-19, TAC-63186, NUDOCS 8610270410 | |
| Download: ML20197A861 (5) | |
Text
1 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLE /iR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
In the Matter of
)
)
Omaha Public Power Distiict
)
Docket No. 50-285 (Fort Calhoun Station
)
Unit No. 1)
)
c
)
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT 0F OPERATING LICENSE Pursuant to Section 50.90 of the regulations of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("the Commission"), Omaha Public Power District, 1
holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-40, herewith requests that Sections E and 5 of the Technical Specifications set forth in Appendix A to that License be amended to incorporate revised reporting requirements on Primary Coolant Iodine Spikes.
The proposed changes in Technical Specifications are set forth in Attachment A to this Application. A discussion, which demonstrates that the proposed changes do not involve significant hazards considerations, is appended in Attachment B.
A check for the application fee, $150.00, accompanies this Application. The proposed changes in specifications would not authorize any change in the types or any increase in the amounts of effluents or any change in the authorized power level of the facility.
WHEREFORE, Applicant respectfully requests that Sections 2 and 5 of Appendix A to Facility Operating License No. DPR-40 be amended in the form attached hereto as Attachment A.
8610270410 861023 PDR ADOCK 05000285 P
PDR 1
9
. A copy of this Application, including its attachments, has been submitted to the Director - Nebraska State Division of Radiological Health, as required by 10 CFR 50.91.
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT By Division Manager Nuclear Production Subscribed and sworn to before me this 81 day of October, 1986.
sininu merm-sim d m MELVA L. EVANS e Aasw tees. Es, S-1t-66 8
AM ON ASTLvtA Notary Public
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of
)
)
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
)
Docket No. 50-285 (Fort Calhoun Station,
)
Unit No. 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a document entitled
" Application for Amendment of Operating License," together with the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications and the
" Discussion, Justification and Significant Hazards Consideration," by mailing a copy thereof first class, postage prepaid, to the following persons this 23rd day of October 1986:
Mr. Frank Gibson Director W. Dale Clark Library 215 South 15th Street Omaha, NE 68102 Mr. Jack Jensen Chairman, Washington County Board of Supervisors 16th and Colfax Streets Blair, NE 68008 W Mo o s)
_m 4
James W. Moeller LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Attorneys for Omaha Public Power District
ATTACHMENT B DISCUSSION, JUSTIFICATION AND SIGNIFICANT-HAZARDS CONSIDERATION The Fort Calhoun Station Technical Specifications are being revised in response to Generic Letter 85-19 " Reporting Requirements on Primary Coolant Iodine Spikes".
The changes are modeled after the recommendations of the generic letter.
Further, this license change request supersedes that part of an earlier request that dealt with technical specification 2.1.3 on pages 2-8 and 2-9 as submitted in letter LIC-85-269 OPPD (R. L. Andrews) to NRC (E.J.
Butcher) dated June 17, 1985. The June 17, 1985 letter supplemented an earlier change request dated November 18, 1983 that responed to Generic Letter 83-43 on the LER System 10CFR 50.73.
4 Item 2.1.3(2) has been deleted because in the Commissions Generic Letter 85-19, it was stated "that the existing requirements to shut down a plant if coolant iodine activity limits are exceeded for 800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> in a 12 month period can be eliminated'.
I Item 2.1.3(5)
The second sentence is revised to change the reporting of an iodine spike from the short term to the ANNUAL REPORT in accordance with the NRC's direction.
Item 2.1.3(5) has been expanded (adding 2.1.3(5)d and 2.1.3(5)(e) to provide for the detailed report requirements as directed by the NRC.
l Item 5.9.4bl.(e) is added in accordance with the NRC recommendation on reporting of an iodine spike in the ANNUAL REPORT Sianificant Hazards Consideration The following discussion is provided in support of OPPD's position that this amendment application does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
4 l
1.
Will the probability of occurrences or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the i
Safety Analysis Report be increased?
No, because there are no physical changes to the plant and the changes are in accordance with NRC Generic Letter 85-19 " Reporting Requirements on Primary Coolant Iodine Spikes." Reporting requirements are reduced and a minor limiting condition is eliminated.
2.
Will the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the Safety Analysis Report be created?
\\
No, because there are no physical changes to the plant and the the NRC has 4
directed a reduction in reporting requirements from short term reports to
{
the annual report and the deletion of a minor limiting condition.
i I
l
ATTACHMENT B (Continued) 3.
Will the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification be reduced?
No, because the NRC has directed a reduction in reporting requirements from short term reports to the annual report and the deletion of a minor limiting condition.
The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists by providing certain examples (51 FR 7751) of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations.
Example (i) relates to a change which is administrative in nature, intended to achieve consistency or correct an error. The proposed change is representative of example (i) in that it reduced the reporting requirements from short term reports to the annual report and the deletion of a minor limiting condition.
Example (iv) relates to granting a relief upon demonstration of acceptable operation from an operating restriction previously imposed.